Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESSS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the transfer of Covent Garden Market to a site in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to enable the Treasury to fulfil guarantees given by them with respect to the redemption of, or the payment of interest on, Covent Garden Market Stock or Covent Garden Market debentures; and
(b) any increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which under Section 40 of the Covent Garden Market Act 1961 —

(i) may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund to enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make advances to the Covent Garden Market Authority;
(ii) may be raised under the National Loars Act 1939;
(iii) are required to be paid into the Exchequer and subsequently issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or meeting such part of the annual charges for the national debt as represents interest.— [Mr. Crossman.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

SELECTION

Committee of Selection nominated.— Mr. Brian Batsford, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr.Harold Gurden, Mr.Clifford.

Kenyon, Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. John M. Temple, Sir Richard Thompson, Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Wood-burn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

CORPORATION OF THE TRINITY HOUSE OF LEITH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

New Towns (Co-operation with Delevelopment Corporations)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage co-operation between local authorities in new towns and the development corporations.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): Since I became Minister I have constantly urged the need for the fullest possible cooperation. I took the opportunity in a speech at Redditch in August to emphasise the great importance I attach to this and to point the way to collaboration and partnership in the future.

Mrs. Williams: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his great efforts to encourage co-operation between new town corporations and local authorities, which is much appreciated in the new towns, may I ask him to be willing to consider representations about the ultimately more democratic form of administration than that which is possible under the New Towns Commission?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, as I think I said at Redditch, we are aware that the present Commission is, from our point of view, a temporary form of government of which we do not approve and which we want to replace by a more democratic form, in which the local authorities would play a far more direct and important role.

Mr. Allason: Where there is a joint housing list already in operation, how does the Minister intend to deal with the problem of differing rises in rents, for various reasons, in the future?

Mr. Crossman: That is really another question, but let me say that I believe that even under the Commission a great deal can be achieved by getting the corporation or commission houses and the local authority houses under joint management. This is something of which I strongly approve.

Elected Members (Financial Hardship)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, if he will request the Maud Committee to make an interim report, to relieve the financial hardship being experienced by elected members of the larger municipal authorities.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will instruct the Maud Committee to review as a matter of urgency the present maximum loss of earnings per diem allowance of £2 10s. payable to elected representatives of local authorities, and make an interim award to relieve financial hardship at present incurred by councillors and aldermen of the larger municipal authorities in discharging their public duties.

Mr. Alan Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when it is intended to review the loss of earnings allowance payable to elected members of local authorities.

Mr. Walter Harrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will request the Maud Committee to make an interim report, to relieve the financial hardship being experienced by elected members.

Mr. English: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will request the Maud Committee to make an interim report, to relieve the financial hardship being experienced by elected members of the larger municipal authorities.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will request the Maud Committee to make an interim report, to relieve the financial hardship being experienced by elected members of the larger municipal authorities.

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend explained on 4th November, the Government have decided that it would not be right to increase the rates of financial loss allowance at the present time but the position will be reviewed next year. A decision on this matter is not dependent on a report from the Maud Committee. I understand that the Committee do intend to make an interim report on allowances to members of local authorities, but that what they are considering is the basis on which these payments are made rather than the actual amount.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he will agree that it is unfortunate as well as destructive of good local government that working men who are councillors, even including the chairmen of major committees in the big authorities, have to work overtime at weekends to recoup their losses from the present maximum loss of earnings allowance of £2 10s. a day, and even some very dedicated people are beginning to call local government service a mug's game?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I am aware of the very great strain and difficulty in recruiting personnel of the quality recruited 20 or 30 years ago, and this is something to which the Maud Committee is giving its attention. However, I would say that the reference my hon. Friend made to the chairmen of key committees, with the implication that they might be paid differential rates, is something with which in principle I do not really concur.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that since May, 1962, when the present maximum of £2 10s. was fixed, average weekly earnings have bounded from £15 12s. 10d. to £18 18s. 2d.—in other words, we have seen an increase in average weekly earnings of 21 per cent. and this burden is intolerable—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must try to put his supplementary question more quickly.

Mr. Crossman: The position of the wage-earning councillor is serious, but in my view it is not so serious as the position of those councillors, such as housewives and professional people, who cannot get anything for broken time. This is why I


want the whole position of the allowance for a councillor to be reviewed whether he is a wage earner or a salary earner.

Mr.English: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's remarks, would he not agree that it would be better simply to pay people what they lose instead of the present limited allowances which are actually not subject to tax? Would it not be better to pay them and tax them?

Mr.Crossman: These are all matters on which no dobut the Maud Committee will advise me on the basis of need. When dealing with professional people and housewives this is an even more difficult basis of estimation.

Oxford and Cambridge Colleges (Grants in Lieu of Rates)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make arrangements to provide special grants through the University Grants Committee to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges in lieu of rates.

Mr.Crossman: I am not yet in a position to say.

Mr. Woodhouse: Is the Minister in a position to say whether I am right in suspecting that he has no intention of fulfilling the expectations raised by the general secretary of his party last year that the grievances of Oxford and Cambridge ratepayers over colleges' rate relief would be removed by an Exchequer subsidy? If I am right, may I ask him to say so frankly now so that the city and college authorities can get together on an alternative solution?

Mr. Crossman: No, the hon. Member would not be right on that assumption. All I was asked to say was whether special grants would be made through the University Grants Committee. Although I am more impressed than ever by the legitimate irritation of ratepayers of Oxford I am also more impressed than previously by the difficulty of persuading my colleagues of the kind of solution I should like to introduce.

Green Belt, Whiston Rural District

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he approved the recent proposal by

the Huyton and Kerby District Council for development in the Green Belt at Lickers Lane in the Whiston Rural District, contrary to the recommendations of his inspector.

Mr. Crossman: I approved this proposal by Huyton-with-Roby Urban District Council because of its urgent need for more housing land.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that this land is good agricultural land in the Green Belt, that the application was opposed both by Lancashire County Council and the rural district in which it lies and that the rural district council, rather than seek to build on this land, built on more expensive land? In those circumstances, does not this favouring of Huyton demand some explanation?

Mr. Crossman: There was no favouring of Huyton. The fact is that Huyton is one of the most overcrowded urban areas we know. It was due to run out of housing land altogether by the end of 1966. There and in one or two other cases I had to decide on a choice of evils which it was preferable to make and decided on a small encroachment on the Green Belt rather than to leave this urban district without any housing land.

London Government Act (Effect on Rates)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the estimated effect of the London Government Act on rates in the London boroughs during the present financial year.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had many complaints from ratepayers in my constituency about increases in rates due to this Act?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. I, too, speak as a London Member. I think we had all better wait and see what the position is in the rating assessment which will come up in April of next year, because by that time the London Government Act will have been working for a year and there will be no rough estimate, as I think there was in the last year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not the fact that the great majority of the major


increases took place in Labour-controlled boroughs? Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explain why that is so?

Mr. Mellish: Probably because the Labour-controlled boroughs give a better service.

Rating

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, following representations made to him, he will make a statement in regard to the inequitable rating position of counties with very rapidly expanding populations.

Mr. Crossman: The Government's proposals on local government finance are to be announced early next year.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will include measures to deal with that problem. Is he aware that this is not a question of planing ahead to meet future hardship? It is an existing problem which is already being aggravated in the current year's financial arrangements, certainly in Hertfordshire, and probably in relation to other counties?

Mr.Crossman: Yes. I am aware of the problem which the Hertford County Council, among others, has presented to me. In our reorganisation of the grant system we will try to work out an improved formula which takes account of that aspect.

Rent Officers, Dorset

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to appoint rent officers in the County of Dorset.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr.James MacColl): These officers will be appointed by the Clerk of the County Council personally. I do not expect that they will be operating before next February.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that in the meantime the granting of tenancies is being held up and thereby the amount of available housing diminished? Is there any good reason why London should have any preference over the County of Dorset?

Mr. MacColl: The main reason is that, as the Milner Holland Report made perfectly clear, London is in an extremely difficult position and requires top priority.

New Town, Humber Estuary

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement regarding his plans for a new town in the Humber Estuary.

Mr. Crossman: There is great potential for growth on Humberside; and the special review referred to on page 97 of the National Plan will include among its urgent tasks a study of the possibilities offered by Humberside. Specific proposals will have to be considered in the light of that review.

Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend know that his statement at the Blackpool conference about this new town was welcomed on Humberside, particularly in Hull? We believe that the Humber Bridge is essential to any future planning of this nature. Does my right hon. Friend share that view? Is the bridge an integral part of his future planning?

Mr. Crossman: My enthusiasm is as strong now as it was at Blackpool. I also think the bridge is very important, but I still think that we have to look at this carefully and I am waiting for the report of the Regional Council and its views on the subject.

Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield Development Corporations

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement about the future employment of the staffs of the Welwyn Garden City and the Hatfield Development Corporations in the light of his announcement that he intends to dissolve the Corporations on 1st April 1966.

Mr. Crossman: If it is finally decided to transfer responsibility from the Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield Development Corporations, I will then send to the New Towns Whitley Council details of what is proposed so that the Council may have an opportunity of considering any matters which may appear to affect the staff of the two Corporations.

Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he has already announced that the Welwyn Garden City and the Hatfield Development Corporations are redundant? He has done this without any discussion with the staffs involved. This has been the cause of very considerable worry to these people, whose employment prospects are involved. When are these discussions likely to take place, because these people are very worried?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that since I made that announcement the Hatfield side has come to me and asked to have the decision reconsidered, in view of a possible expansion. I have given them eight weeks. If the hon. Gentleman would table another Question in a few weeks, I will try to give him a further answer.

Local Authority Housing Loans

Mr.Shepherd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that arises from the fixed nature of housing loans granted by local authorities; and whether he will seek to make some simplified movement of interest rates mandatory.

Mr. Mellish: Housing loans may carry fixed or variable rates of interest depending on the method of financing adopted by the local authority. My right hon. Friend is aware that there have been complaints where rates have been fixed for the period of the loan. He is reviewing the lending policies of local authorities including the methods of fixing lending rates.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many authorities refuse to have a varying rate because of the inconvenience which this causes to them and that this matter of convenience ought not to stand before the interests of the ordinary citizen?

Mr. Mellish: Yes; we will take that into account.

Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the dissatisfaction varies directly with the rate of interest originally fixed? Will he also bear in mind that it is desirable to leave some functions with local authorities to decide locally, in the light of requirements in their areas?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement very shortly, I hope, in regard to interest terms which will be available to local authorities.

Bognor Regis Inquiry (Report)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has received the Report of the inquiry conducted in Bognor Regis by Mr. J. Ramsay Willis, Q.C.; if he will make a statement on its findings; and what arrangements he is making to ensure that the Report will be available to the public.

Mr. Crossman: I have studied very carefully Mr. Ramsay Willis's comprehensive Report. It seems to me to put the events which led to Mr. Paul Smith's resignation as Town Clerk of Bognor Regis into their true perspective—as an unhappy domestic quarrel, revealing no fundamental weakness in the administration of the Council or of local government generally. The Report will be on sale from tomorrow as a Stationery Office publication, and I am arranging for copies to be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 a.m.

Mr. Loveys: May I thank the Minister for that reply and for the efficient way in which the inquiry was conducted? Is he absolutely certain that the whole matter is to be completely and thoroughly aired so as to reduce the possibility of any ill-informed speculation which has already done harm to a very fine seaside resort?

Mr. Crossman: I would prefer to leave it to the hon. Member to judge the report for himself. My view of it has been described in the Answer. I think that it has cleared the air, which is most important, and it has made clear that charges of widespread corruption in local government were completely unsubstantiated.

Machinery of Local Government

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much information is at the disposal of his Department about the machinery of local government.

Mr. MacColl: A lot, Sir. But if the hon. Gentleman will let me know what


he has in mind I will give him a more specific reply.

Mr. Jennings: I shall be interested to know how much more information the Minister needs. Would it not be better to deal with the reform of local government on the basis of a national plan—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very interesting, but it does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Jennings: I had not finished my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, because of the interruptions opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must come to the subject matter of his supplementary question.

Mr. Jennings: Would it not be better to deal with the reform of local government in the way I suggested rather than deal with it on the basis of a piecemeal tabling of Orders for separate areas?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend found this difficulty as soon as he came into office, and he has said that he is looking at the possibility of a much broader approach to the problem of the reform of local government than is possible under existing legislation. He is not responsible for that legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Leigh Park Tenants' Association

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the letter written to him on 11th October, 1965 by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone, asking him to receive a delegation from the Leigh Park Tenants' Association, remains unanswered.

Mr. Crossman: I sent the hon. Member a reply on 3rd November.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the Minister not consider that a period of three weeks is a rather long time to wait for a reply when a large number of my constituents have asked for an interview with him? Does he not consider it most inappropriate that the main answer to questions which I have put to him in a letter were con-

veyed to a Parliamentary candidate in an adjoining constituency?

Mr. Crossman: I think the hon. Member has put the second part of his supplementary question as a separate question, although I do not know. I do not think it was unreasonable to wait for three weeks since finally the city council decided to ask for an independent inquiry and asked me to appoint a district auditor to carry it out. To wait for three weeks seems not unreasonable.

Building Societies (Proposals for Restraining Lending)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement on his discussions with the building societies and representatives of the building industry about his proposals for restraining building society lending.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech which I made on 11th November in the course of the debate on the Address.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Minister answer the question he rather pointedly did not answer in that speech, as to whether or not—aye or no—the building societies have agreed with him to ration or restrict advances where not to do so would take the total of privately built houses above whatever figure the Government desire to fix?

Mr. Crossman: The building societies, as I announced in the communiqué which I published, have now agreed and are working on a working party with me on the financial arrangements we are to make for the joint control of the programme. This is something we shall consult on together. It is true that there is great reluctance on the part of the builders and also, naturally, of the building societies to see any restriction on private building. We are now discussing in a working party the method by which the regulation of the private sector can be achieved without the kind of restriction which they would resent and also with the kind of balance and flexibility which is required.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not that answer to my supplementary question simply boil down to "No"?

Mr. Grossman: No, it does not, and it would be very misleading to say so because the building societies and the builders are completely agreed with me on the need to work out a method of cooperation which will achieve a continuous expansion of the industry. It is not unreasonable in the economy, when other people put themselves targets and decide on the general advance which they would need to complete, that we should decide how much we want to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that Ministers will make their answers to supplementary questions shorter.

Rent Act, 1965 (Tenants' Rights)

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action has been taken to inform tenants of their rights under the Rent Ac: 1965.

Mr. Grossman: I have already drawn attention to the Act in a television broadcast, and it has also received wide publicity in the Press. Later this week there will be available a million free leaflets for distribution by local authorities and citizens advice bureaux, and half-a-million copies of a ninepenny booklet published by the Stationery Office. In due course, a team of mobile cinemas will publicise the opening of the new rent assessment machinery in the various registration areas.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action he is taking. Is he considering bringing out a publication in a simple question and answer style because it is important that the information on rights in respect of the Act restored to tenants should be widely known? Will he consider sending this publication to local authorities, advice bureaux and tenants' associations?

Mr. Grossman: The ninepenny booklet to which I referred is exactly a question and answer booklet for tenants and landlords.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that supplies of the ninepenny booklet are available for hon. Members for use in their advice bureaux?

Mr. Grossman: I shall certainly bear that in mind.

Elderly People (Hearing Installations)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to include heating and thermal installations in dwellings for elderly people as qualifying for standard grants by local authorities.

Mr. Mellish: Legislation on improvement grants is under review, and the point will be borne in mind. Discretionary grants can already be given for this purpose for property owned by local authorities, housing associations or other responsible bodies.

Mr. Loveys: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the hopeful tone of his reply. Would he agree that heating installations are absolutely essential in homes for the elderly and that it is wrong to exclude them from grants as of right which are given to other communities under the Housing Act?

Interest Rates

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what priority Her Majesty's Government now gives to the introduction of a policy of lower interest rates for housing.

Mr. Crossman: I shall be announcing shortly details of a new subsidy scheme related to the interest rates housing authorities have to pay. During this Session we shall also make known our plans to broaden the basis of owner-occupation.

Mr. Carlisle: Would not the Minister agree that it is disgraceful, the Government having canvassed for votes at the last General Election on the basis of lower interest rates, that owner occupiers a year later are in fact paying higher interest rates?

Mr. Crossman: No. I would not think that in a five-year programme the decision to postpone one important element in the programme and not have it so far is anything like a broken pledge. I repeat the Prime Minister's assurance that we shall announce our intentions and legislate as soon as possible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that reference to the Prime Minister's assurance mean that it is the Government's intention to introduce the necessary legislation this Session?

Mr. Crossman: No.I merely referred to the Prime Minister's statement that we should announce it in this Session and legislate as soon as possible.

Local Authority and Private Housing (Building Ratio)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government upon what criteria he based his decision to impose a 50:50 ratio between local authorities and private enterprise in the building of houses.

Mr. Crossman: The criterion upon which I adjudged it necessary to achieve an annual output of 250,000 rented houses by 1970 was acute social need. There is no question of imposing a 50:50 ratio. The balance between building for letting and building for owner-occupation will be kept under regular review in the discussions in which representatives of the builders and building societies have agreed to join.

Mr. Hunt: What right has the Minister to set himself up as a judge in these matters? Will he bear in mind that the great majority of the people do not want to remain council tenants all their lives? They want the sense of independence and security which home ownership brings and which is being actively discouraged by the Government at present.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the demand for home ownership. However, it is not the right but the duty of a Minister of Housing to decide what amount of our housing resources should be allocated to houses to be let by councils. I have decided that a very modest requirement to make up for the backlog is 250,000 a year by 1970.

Mr. loan L. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Government's policy is welcomed in the country generally, especially in large conurbations like Birmingham where there are 40,000 or more on the waiting list whose only hope is to have a house to rent from the council? Although we support the Government's efforts to increase the num-

ber of houses for sale, we also welcome the Government's policy to make up the backlog.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what were the total numbers of houses built in the United Kingdom between 1952 and 1964 inclusive, for private owners, and the public sector, respectively.

Mr. Crossman: One million, seven hundred and seventy thousand for private owners and 2,260,000 for public authorities. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the figures for each year.

Mr. Allason: As these figures, on a quick mental calculation, work out at five council houses for every four private houses built during the 13 years of Tory rule, will the Minister explain why he is so dissatisfied with that ratio and how he intends to change it in the future?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. My dissatisfaction is due to the fact that for the first seven years of Conservative Government public sector building exceeded private sector building. Since then, private sector building has overwhelmingly exceeded public sector building, and I need to redress the balance.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend show in the table he intends to publish separate figures for Scotland as against the English position, because the Scottish trend has been quite different from the English trend?

Mr. Crossman: I am afraid my hon. Friend must ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the Scottish picture. I deal with the collective picture.

Following is the Table:


DWELLINGS COMPLETED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 1952–1964


Year
Public sector
Private Sector
Total


1952
211,649
36,670
248,319


1953
261,937
64,867
326,804


1954
261,706
92,423
354,129


1955
208,330
116,093
324,423


1956
181,243
126,431
307,674


1957
178,806
128,784
307,590


1958
148,413
130,220
278,633


1959
128,402
153,166
281,568


1960
132,850
171,405
304,255


1961
122,434
180,727
303,161


1962
135,232
178,211
313,643


1963
129,927
177,787
307,714


1964
161,928
221,264
383,192

Mortgages

Mrs. Thatcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether it is his intention to introduce legislation for cheaper mortgages for house purchasers this session.

Mr. Grossman: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the debate on the Address on 9th November that the Government's plans will be made known during this Session and legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible date; but we have to get the country's accounts into balance first. I have nothing to add to his statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: First, do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is only the money factor which is preventing the legislation from being introduced now? Secondly, would he end some of the uncertainty which is being created, by saying whether the legislation will apply to existing mortgages?

Mr. Grossman: I have nothing to add. We are preparing our plans. We shall announce them. Meanwhile, I would only add that our immediate plans for rate rebates will benefit owner-occupiers as well as everybody else.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether the First Secretary was right when he said at Erith that the plans would be made available this year?

Mr. Grossman: My right hon. Friend was obviously referring to this Parliamentary year.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Untenanted Houses

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the large number of houses which have been untenanted for long periods; and if he will make these more readily available to those in need of them either by speeding up the present compulsory purchase procedure or by seeking to permit rates to be levied on them.

Mr. MacColl: If my hon. Friend has any evidence to suggest that this is a serious problem in particular areas I

should be glad if he would send it to me. My right hon. Friend has recently taken measures to reduce the time spent by the Department in dealing with compulsory purchase orders, but interested parties must, of course, have the opportunity to put their views. The levying of rates on empty property is being considered by the Government as part of its examination of the rating system.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware how galling it is for people to see desperately needed houses being kept empty often for a long period? There were, for example, 498 in Salford alone on 31st March and, according to the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, £1 million worth of property in that city. Would my hon. Friend, therefore, give these two suggestions further consideration?

Mr. MacColl: As I said to my hon. Friend, we are considering this. It is not a question of dismissing it, but in looking at the figures one must have some regard to the percentages because some degree of vacancy is necessary if we are to have some mobility in rented properties.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will not the delay in the appointment of rent committees and rent officers add to these difficulties?

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir.

Old Houses (Improvement Grant)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his review of old houses lacking baths, hot water and inside lavatories; what is his policy with regard to such houses; and if he will reduce the period of 15 years minimum existence a house must have before an improvement grant can be made.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend's review is continuing. Its aim is to see what changes would best further his policy of making improvement play its full part in the renewal of our cities. I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will be very pleasing to many families, particularly as most landlords are dragging their feet? Will he also bear in mind that even 10 years is far too long a period in which to have to


bring up a family in such houses without improvements and that most councils do not know which houses they will be demolishing 15 years hence?

Mr. Mellish: The 15 years' minimum is certainly one of the things which we are looking at. It is a perfectly fair point to say that all these facilities must be put in some houses which may perhaps have a shorter life.

Private House Building (1965 and 1966)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what details he has received about the number of private houses for sale likely to be started in Great Britain in 1965, and the number likely to be started in 1966.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what information he has about the number of private houses for sale likely to be started in Great Britain in 1965, and the number likely to be started in 1966.

Mr. Crossman: I expect private builders in Great Britain to start about 210,000 houses by the end of 1965 and about 230,000 to 240,000 in 1966, almost all of them for sale.

Captain Elliot: Is the Minister aware that that is not a very satisfactory answer? Does not he think that when there is a growing desire by people to own their own houses and a growing ability to be able to own them, it is most disturbing that his policy is working in the reverse direction?

Mr. Crossman: I am not at all aware of it and I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that to be true. We are determined to increase the number of houses started and completed for owner-occupation and have a steady improvement throughout the next four-year period.

Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures given for 1965 are about 10 per cent. below those for 1964? Does not that mean that we are going backwards?

Mr. Crossman: There were 37,000 fewer starts this year than last year. According to the builders, and I accept

their analysis, one difficulty was the problem of land. The other was the shortage of mortgage finance caused by difficulties which we had last spring—difficulties now overcome and with record investments now available.

Mr. Freeson: Is not it the plain fact that in their period of office the last Government said that they were going to put first priority on slum clearance but that they cut public housing by 50 per cent.? Is not it a fact that the only way to give a clear priority to the clearing of the rotten parts of cities is by stepping up massively public sector housing in this way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What steps is the Minister taking to make up for the backlog, to use his own phrase, resulting from houses lost this year?

Mr. Crossman: We have already made up in terms of mortgage advances, and after consultation with the building societies and the builders I see no reason for difficulties on that side in pushing forward and increasing starts next year.

Industrialised Building

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had in order to ensure an increase in the number of dwellings built by industrialised methods.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend's adviser on industrialised building and regional and headquarters officers of the Ministry and of the National Building Agency acting in concert with the Ministry have had many discussions with the main housebuilding local authorities, with groups of local authorities who are working in consortia and with the sponsors of building systems. The purpose is to help authorities to make good use of the productive capacity of industrialised building methods and my right hon. Friend will be sending a circular to authorities about this shortly.

Mr.Jenkin: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend not to yield to the pressure coming from the brick makers at the moment to cut down industrialised building which is so vitally important to the housing drive? Will he add his weight to that of his right


hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and resist this pressure, however justified the brick makers may be in thinking that they were misled by his right hon. Friend last year?

Mr. Mellish: We are very enthusiastic about the use of industrialised building and we are doing all we can. Let me give some figures to the House. Let us have credit for something. In the first half of 1964 the amount of industrialised building done in this country for local authorises and new towns was 15·3 per cent. of building. I am happy and proud to say that in the first half of this year this has gone up to 25·5 per cent. and it is going up all the time.

Programmes Approved

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many of the figures described as Programmes Approved have the approval neither of their councils nor of his Department; and how many of them include schemes whose phasing will stretch beyond 1968.

Mr. Mellish: I assume the Question refers to Greater London. Each local authority's programme was officially submitted by the council. The submitted programmes were modified in the light of the Department's assessment of their feasibility. The revised programmes were then approved by me on behalf of my right hon. Friend, announced by me on 20th September, and confirmed officially in writing to each local authority.
The answer to the first part of the Question is therefore "None". The answer to the second part is that since programme approval is in terms of tenders to be let, all the programmes contain schemes whose construction period will run on beyond 1968.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is not it true that some discussions are going on still between the London boroughs and the Ministry on this subject? If that is so, how can the Parliamentary Secretary describe this scheme as approved, particularly when tenders have not been let in any event?

Mr. Mellish: The programmes have been approved in conjunction with the local authorities. They are minimum programmes and when they apply for

loan sanctions they will be given those sanctions. What more can we do than give approval to programmes of this kind?

Population Density, Inner London

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether it is his intention to issue a circular recommending higher density of population in Inner London.

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. Any development proposed at a density higher than in the development plan must continue to be looked at on its individual merits.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend resist any temptation or pressure to try to squeeze a quart into a pint pot, and will he, therefore, encourage the dispersal of population to the new towns outside London, as this would make the biggest possible contribution to solving the housing problem in London?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know about putting a quart into a pint pot, but it is a fact that the local authority programmes in London, which we have announced, can be achieved within the broad policy of the county development plan. We look at each case on its merits.

Houses under Construction (Increase)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much the number of houses under construction increased between 30th September, 1963 and 30th September, 1964; and by how much it increased between 30th September, 1964 and 30th September, 1965.

Mr. Grossman: The increases in Great Britain were about 56,000 and 24,000, respectively.

Mr. Blaker: Do not those figures show that the rate of increase in the year 1963–64 was over twice as great as it has been in the 12 months just ended? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the figures with Labour's promises about a great expansion in house building?

Mr. Grossman: The hon. Gentleman has asked me for figures of. houses under construction. I am much more concerned with the figures of houses completed, and if I take these in the same period, the 12 months from 1st October, 1964, I find that we have 24,200 more houses completed than in the previous 12 months. I should have thought that that was quite a good result.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Rhodesia

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations which of the powers over Rhodesia, reserved by the Constitution of 1923, were abandoned by the British Government in consideration of the acceptance by Rhodesia of the 1961 Constitution; and which are still in force.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): Between 1923 and 1961 the British Government had the power of disallowance of any law passed by the Southern Rhodesian legislature and the Constitution also required certain Bills principally those discriminating against Africans, to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. There was also a limited power of amending the Constitution by Letter Patent or Order in Council. Under the 1961 Constitution the power of disallowance is restricted to laws which affect Southern Rhodesian Government stock issued under the Colonial Stock Acts or which are inconsistent with international obligation relating to Southern Rhodesia. The power to amend the Constitution by Order in Council is confined to a limited range of provisions, principally those dealing with the Governor and only certain Bills amending the Constitution are liable to be reserved. The scope of the powers—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Bottomley: It must be put if the facts are required by the House.
The scope of the powers vested in the British Government by the Constitution does not, of course, affect the ultimate responsibility of this Parliament and the British Government for Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must find other ways of dealing with a long Answer like that.

Sir Richard Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from 1961 until today, the British Government have had no powers to alter the main provisions of the Rhodesian Constitution or to enforce immediate adoption of such doctrines as one man, one vote, and will he agree that the repeated suggestions that Britain should use such powers may have helped to convince loyal Rhodesians that their country had to attain independence in one way or another?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot accept anything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Rhodesia.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the very full statements already made by myself and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fisher: Are the Government still in touch with the Governor and the Chief Justice? If not, is there any way of regaining contact and, through them, with the loyalist and moderate element in Rhodesia? Without such contacts it would be very difficult for a constitutional and legal Government to emerge in future.

Mr. Bottomley: We are still in touch with the Governor.

India and Pakistan (Visits by the Secretary of State)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what plans he has to visit India and Pakistan.

Mr. Bottomley: I have no plans to visit India or Pakistan in the immediate future. I was glad to welcome Mr. Patil and Mr. Shoaib here recently for political discussions and I hope that it will be possible to exchange other visits at Ministerial level in the coming months.

Mr. Onslow: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be very disappointed by the vagueness of that reply, particularly in view of the damage done to relations between Britain


and India by the maladroitness of the Prime Minister's reaction to the outbreak of fighting in the Punjab? Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of urgency to the Commonwealth?

Mr. Bortomley: The hon. Member's views are not shared by all knowledgeable people. I should welcome an opportunity to visit India and Pakistan as and when it is readily agreed by both sides.

Cyprus

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on progress towards a peaceful settlement in Cyprus acceptable to both major communities.

Mr. Bortomley: I regret to say that little progress has been made towards a settlement. But the Cyprus items are to be debated by the United Nations General Assembly in the near future, and we hope that this will pave the way for further discussions between the parties concerned which could result in progress being made towards a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did the Prime Minister tell the Press that the Government would accept any solution agreed to by the U.N. General Assembly? Have the Government relinquished any of their responsibilities as co-guarantors of the Cyprus Constitution? Must not any settlement be acceptable to both major communities in the island?

Mr. Bortomley: The comment refers to me. I said to the Acting Foreign Minister in Cyprus that the British Government would support any solution that the United Nations was able to achieve. It goes without saying that there can be no solution to the Cyprus problem not acceptable to all the parties concerned. There has thus been no change whatever in the position on this matter.

Mr. Paget: Does not that mean that there can be no solution to the problem because there can be none which is acceptable to both communities?

RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Rhodesian Governor, and on the situation in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to my statements of 9th, 11th and 12th November.

Mr. Wall: While expressing admiration for the devotion to duty displayed by the Governor, may I ask the Prime Minister how it is intended that he should govern? Is he, for example, to try to set up a lawful Government in opposition to Mr. Smith?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this Question.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the use of force, under United Nations auspices, in Southern Rhodesia has been included in Her Majesty's Government's contingency planning on this problem.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to, or subtract from, the statements I made in the House on Thursday and Friday of last week.

Mr. Hamilton: Am I right in assumiug that my right hon. Friend's statement on Friday made no reference at all to subscribing to a United Nations force and he was referring to a plea for help from the Governor in Rhodesia which might possibly be made to the Government in this country? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if all else fails, United Nations action by force, backed up by Her Majesty's Government, is not ruled out?

The Prime Minister: The statement I made in the middle of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition relared to an appeal from Rhodesia for help in restoring law and order. I have said on a number of occasions that I do not believe that the use of military force is appropriate for settling the constitutional problems of Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Prime Minister take it that he will have the


fullest support of this side of the House for what he has said on the inappropriate-ness of the use of force in this difficult situation? Has he had any application from his hon. Friend to join any expeditionary force?

The Prime Minister: I shall take all offers of fullest support from any hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which they are intended.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Prime Minister which of the reserve powers under the 1923 Constitution have ever been enforced by the British Government, and which reserve powers were withdrawn when Rhodesia was granted a further Constitution in 1961.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is None, Sir: as regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from 1961 until today, anyone who advocated that the British Government should force the Rhodesian Government into adopting such a doctrine as the immediate implementation of one man, one vote, was advocating that the British Government should do something ultra vires?

The Prime Minister: I have explained on a number of occasions our position about majority rule in Rhodesia, but since we are referring to the 1923 and 1961 Constitutions I may add that what appals all of us is the way in which the 1961 Constitution has been twisted out of recognition while still being appealed to as being enforced. This is why we were anxious, if there were to be independence, that the Constitution should be fully entrenched and safeguarded against tricks of that kind.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENTS

Mr. Rowland: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for statements by him in the House of Commons to be made available to Members at the conclusion of the statement whenever

the statement is also being issue to the Press.

The Prime Minister: Copies of my statements are already put in the Library of the House as soon after delivery as a correct text can be made available.

Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on several occasions, for example, the occasions of his important statements of 1st and 3rd November, on Rhodesia, hon. Members wishing to study them had to beg or borrow copies from members of the Press Gallery, and that only one copy in the Library is not really adequate for this purpose?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider whether there should be more copies in the Library, but my hon. Friend will recognise that the statements last week had to be prepared right at the last moment, and I was not able to observe the usual courtesy to the Opposition. No member of the Press receives a final copy of what has been said until I have sat down and it has been checked.

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES (INVITATIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister how many invitations he has accepted to appear in his capacity as Prime Minister on British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television programmes.

The Prime Minister: The information is being collected and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his undoubted dexterity as a television performer, but will he tell us what plans he has for providing equal time for those whose views may differ from his own, whether he has received any observations from Lord Norman-brook on the subject of over-exposure, and whether he will comment on the recent use on the television screen of a disgraceful four-letter word?

The Prime Minister: No question of four-letter words has appeared or ever will in any of my performances on television, to which this Question refers. I am only too well aware of my inadequacies


on television, but I have not yet fallen to the point where I need the hon. Gentleman as a scriptwriter.

Mr. Grimond: Would not the Prime Minister agree that, while everybody has a right to protest to the B.B.C. about its conduct, it is extremely important that we should encourage and support independent decisions by the B.B.C. and that we in political parties should not try and decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in this type of broadcast? If the broadcasting authorities go seriously wrong, no doubt the matter can be raised in debate, but surely the more decisions the B.B.C. takes independently on as many points as it likes, the better.

The Prime Minister: Certainly. I am aware that there have not been many complaints about the performance of Independent Television and, indeed, the impartiality shown in all these matters by the Chairman. But I think that the ground rules, if there must be ground rules, should be worked out by consultation between the principal parties in this House and then by the television authorities. Subject to that, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

DEFENCE

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions have been held with the Leader of the Opposition on defence matters.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on the 29th of July.

Mr. Evans: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that some clarification should be sought from the Leader of the Opposition of the new attitude to defence as expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, speaking on behalf of the Tory Party, seems to be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is outwith this Question.

Later—

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to your

comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. loan L. Evans) on Question No. Q.5? You ruled that his supplementary question was out of order. For the guidance of the House, could you say how it could be out of order when, in fact, he was inquiring whether, in discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, the views of the official spokesman of the Opposition on defence matters would be a matter for comment? Some of us might think that this was too strict a Ruling and I would ask you to give your view.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have to make decisions very quickly. It seemed to me that the original question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. loan L. Evans) involved the Leader of the Opposition in his relationship with the Prime Minister but no other member of the Opposition.

Mr. Mendelson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that anybody responsible for the formation of defence policy on the Opposition Front Bench is invariably involved in such discussions between the Leaders of the parties? Would it not be better if such matters were allowed?

Mr. Speaker: That is a political argument rather than an argument about order. I hope that we can now proceed.

JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL STONE, RUNNYMEDE

Sir R. Cary: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps, as a matter of urgency, to safeguard from vandalism and further defacement the John F. Kennedy Memorial Stone at Runnymede.

The Prime Minister: While I am sure that the whole House would join with me in deploring acts of vandalism, I understand that recent reports of such acts at the Runnymede Memorial to the late President Kennedy have been exaggerated.

Sir R. Cary: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the worst scars have been removed successfully, except for some scratching on one side of the stone, and that the National Trust, on behalf of the trustees for the American people.


is doing what it can to keep the area free from litter and untidiness? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to express an opinion as to why these monstrous desecrations occur? President Kennedy represented a great ideal in the Western world. Is nothing sacred?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in deploring what has been done. This is pointless and vandalis-tic action. But I understand that the trustees who have been responsible for the memorial are taking all steps to preserve it in proper condition. The hon. Gentleman will know what they are doing about paving the approach.

PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Handing: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek by legislation or amendment to the appropriate charter to put an end to party political broadcasts.

The Prime Minister: Arrangements for party political broadcasts are to be discussed between the political parties, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome.

Mr. Handing: In these discussions, will my right hon. Friend put forward the view that broadcasting should be entirely free from any interference and that there should be liberty of the air just as there is liberty of the Press? Will he also resist any attempt to censor the B.B.C. from any quarter?

The Prime Minister: This Question relates to party political broadcasts and not to broadcasts mounted by the B.B.C. or any other broadcasting authority. There is, I think, a growing feeling that the system of party political broadcasts— I am not referring to their content—needs modernising, but this is a matter to be discussed between the parties in the first instance and then with the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the majority of people would prefer to see their politicians in action in this House rather than in set piece political programmes?

The Prime Minister: I understand that this is still a matter of controversy. It

was debated not long ago and members of the Government are ready to receive representations on the point at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Gas Industry (Proposed Tax on Oil)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the proposed tax on oil used to make gas, suggested in the National Plan, would add approximately £19 million per year to the gas industry's costs and that this could result in a further reduction in the use of coal by the gas industry; and what steps he intends to take to obviate this danger.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): No such tax is proposed at present. In reviewing the preferences accorded to the gas industry, as proposed in the White Paper on Fuel Policy, the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind along with others.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the coal industry is already being hard hit and will be harder hit when the pit closures imminent take place? Will he bear this very much in mind when making his policy on this and related matters?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir.

NORTH THAMES GAS BOARD (GAS PRESSURE REDUCTION)

Sir L. Heald: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the public concern at the reduction of gas pressure which took place last night in the area served by the North Thames Gas Board and at its warning of further cuts today; and if he will give an assurance that every effort will be made to maintain pressure adequately to ensure safety in the operation of all appliances.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): The present cold spell has come exceptionally early at a time when such severe weather is almost unprecedented and the boards' preparations for the winter are not yet completed. The North Thames Gas Board has consequently had difficulty in meeting the very heavy demand for gas and there has been a


fall in pressure in some districts. The West Midlands Gas Board, mainly because of a breakdown at one of its plants, has also had to appeal to consumers to reduce consumption. I am assured that all possible steps to restore and maintain normal supplies are being taken by these boards.

Sir L. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some advice can be given, possibly through radio and television, to the public who use these gas appliances as to the safety precautions they should take?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. There have been broadcasts to this effect, but the boards themselves, having reduced pressures to a certain level, would not permit these to go below the safety level.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent these happenings derive from the policies of the previous Administration?

Mr. Lee: Although the Opposition always try to blame the weather on the Government, I do not blame the Opposition for the fact that this has been the coldest spell at this time of year for 100 years. The boards have been caught on the wrong foot. A great deal of plant they are reconditioning for the winter is not yet in commission.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: To what extent might the high pressure gas grid be expected to help in this situation, particularly in London and the Midlands? Some 70 factories in the Midlands have been asked to stop using gas today with the result that one firm alone has had to send home 2,000 men.

Mr. Lee: The boards themselves are, of course, bringing every ounce of plant they can into commission. When I say that in the last two or three days the consumption of gas has increased by nothing short of 40 per cent., the right hon. Gentleman will understand what that means.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is not this yet another example of the failure of nationalised industries—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not spoil a good occasion. I want to hear the question.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Perhaps I might recapitulate, Mr. Speaker. Is this not yet another example of the failure of nationalised industries—worse service at increased cost?

Mr. Lee: No, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care not to let the first part of his answer, which is one of the funniest we have heard for years, obscure the serious issue, namely, that the termination or suspension of gas supplies would be a source of danger? While one does not want to exaggerate that, clearly it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman and the Gas Council to have urgent consultations to take proper steps to deal with this matter.

Mr. Lee: The first part of the answer was a paraphrase of what the hon. Member himself said when he was answering in 1962. The safety issue is a very important point. In fact, the boards will ensure that if there were any danger of the pressure falling below that which is a safety factor, it would be a question of a cut rather than of any further reduction of pressure.

Mr. McGuire: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the danger which has been outlined could be the result of running away from a policy of using indigenous solid fuel, in respect of which it is within the capacity of firms and individuals to store the fuel which they want when and as required?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the Minister assure us that there will not be similar cuts in electricity week after week in the winter, too?

Mr. Lee: The generating boards are, of course, renovating their plant in the same way as is the gas industry, but I see no reason why there should be cuts during the winter period commensurate with that which we are now having.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a good run.

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURE

Bill to establish a Meat and Livestock Commission and make other provision for the livestock and livestock products industries to authorise grants for improvements of agricultural land and make provision with respect to the shape and size of farms and related matters, agriculture and forestry on hill land, co-operative activities in agriculture, diseases of animals and other matters connected with agriculture, presented by Mr. Peart; supported by Mr. George Brown, Sir F. Soskice, Mr. Ross, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Willey, and Mr. Diamond; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

QUEEN'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[FIFTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We. Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Before I propose the Question again for the debate on the Loyal Address, I wish to announce to the House that I have selected for discussion the two Amendments standing in the name of the Official Opposition. I have selected for debate today the Amendment which seeks to add,
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains little promise of progress in the modernisation of industry, notably in the fields of transport and technology.
For tomorrow I have selected the Amendment which seeks to add,
 But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no measures likely to redeem the failure of Your Majesty's Government's economic policy and, in particular, of the policy on Productivity, Prices and Incomes, which imperils the standard of living and savings of Your people.

Question again proposed.

TRANSPORT AND TECHNOLOGY

3.43 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains little promise of progress in the modernisation of industry, notably in the fields of transport and technology.
It is with some difficulty, after the events of the last few days, that the House turns to the more mundane business of the debate on the Address, and I need little excuse to remind the House of those paragraphs of the Gracious Speech with which our Amendment is concerned.


The first of these is that which deals with the encouragement of British industry
to achieve greater competitive efficiency by re-organisation, the more general use of advanced technology, and better use of manpower.
The second is that which promises legislation
to remove statutory limitations impeding the proper use of the manufacturing resources of the nationalised industries.
The third is the paragraph reading,
My Ministers will bring forward proposals for the more effective co-ordination of inland transport. You will be invited to approve a measure designed to promote greater safety on the roads.
The fourth is that which relates to the legislation arising from the Devlin Report on the docks.
The first, that dealing with technology, sensibly couples the more general use of advanced technology with greater competitive efficiency by re-organisation and the better use of manpower. This seems a far cry from
harnessing Socialism to science and science to Socialism,
which was the slogan which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) used at the Labour Party conferences of 1960 and 1963. That was good rousing stuff, good vote catching stuff, even if the purport of it became a little less clear the more it was examined. But the fact remains that somewhere, somehow, between then and now the right hon. Gentleman has lost the harness. This present approach is sensible enough, but it seems to me to lack the confidence of yesterday's bright morning.
What we may hope to discover from today's debate is just where these good intentions have gone astray. It may well be that the Minister of Technology is the wrong man for the job, appointed perhaps for the wrong reason. It may well be that the conception of a Ministry of Technology has produced, in the words of the Estimates Committee this summer—and that is an all-party committee—a machine which is "slow" and "top heavy". But, given the conception of such a Minister and such a Ministry, there must be a variety of ways in which it can be put to work, and some of them have been forecast. It can gather information as to what, in the Government's opinion, is required in industry and pro-

duce certain, if limited, assistance. Some attempts on these lines have been made in respect of the computer industry and on machine tools. But, in respect of machine tools, I should like to know whether the Government adhere to the policy proposed in "Signposts to the 'Sixties" in which they said,
In machine tools, our aim will probably be best realised by means of competitive public enterprise—the establishment of new, publicly-owned plants 
and so on. In our opinion, this would be going very far. I hope that we may be told to what extent it is still the policy.
Again, given this conception, it might use the power of necessary Government purchasing to stimulate production by the most modern methods. That was forecast by the Prime Minister as long ago as November last year, but we have heard very little of it since. If Socialist policies were to be pursued to their logical and previously forecast conclusion—and there are rumours that it will be pursued to that conclusion—it might go into business itself to spur private enterprise into technological development. All those things might be done, and I do not say now how we should receive them.
The purpose of the debate from our point of view is to persuade the Minister to come out into the open and to tell us what he is doing as Minister of Technology in a Socialist Government to harness Socialism to science, for as yet we are largely in the dark. His Parliamentary Secretary, speaking at Erith as recently as 28th October, is reported to have said:
The Ministry has now got to get down to the job of producing incentives for the technology sector of this country on a scale never known before.
That is fine, but it is surely a little late to be only now getting down to the job.
Admittedly, the atmosphere in which the Minister is doing whatever he is doing was not improved by the Chancellor's postponements of expenditure on capital projects, notably in education. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has pointed out, it was the opinion of the University Grants Committee that the 1965 university building programme, as announced, was the absolute minimum


required to meet the Robbins estimate of the short-term demand for places. Again, with respect to the technical colleges, with the numbers increasing at the rate of 70,000 each year and with enormously increased pressure on the colleges arising from the Industrial Training Act, the six months standstill on building starts is clearly a serious blow to industrial training and, therefore, to the modernisation and efficiency of British industry. I must ask the Minister of Technology whether he put up any fight at all against this action. I suspect that he did not, or, if he did, that he was not strong enough.
One must suspect—-and I say this with no personal disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman—that a Minister brought in from outside for a job which needs, above all, an intimate knowledge both of the Government machine and of the more abstruse aspects of the industrial machine must find himself considerably out of his depth. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the opportunity given him today—by the Opposition, if I may say so —of explaining to the House what it is that he has been doing in the past year and what it may be that he hopes to do. I do not doubt that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will explore these matters further, and certainly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will do so tonight, perhaps rather less urbanely than I, when he winds up the debate. I am given to understand that urbanity is my besetting sin.
As for me, I must turn to transport. I have also searched long and zealously to find what the Minister of Transport has done this year. It seems to me that he "did nothing in particular" but, alas, I cannot find "that he did it very well "In one matter he was decisive enough. He was determined that the road programme should not be cut. On 3rd March he said about the road programme,
We are determined not to cut the programme.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1965; Vol 707, c. 1311.]
On 10th March he said,
… we will adhere to the programme which we inherited …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 391.]

He said it very loud and clear. But in the debate on 3rd August he was at pains to explain to the House, neither loudly nor with any clarity—for all that it took several columns of HANSARD— that he had been persuaded that postponements of the programme were necessary.
But when one looks at the savings which are achieved, this decision seems lunatic. In the debate in August the Minister said that if he then stopped all new works for the financial year he would save only £2 million, and the assumption from this was that the savings on the figures which he gave would be about £1 million. In fact, it appears from a Written Answer given on 3rd November that the saving may be £7 million in this financial year, but this includes projects which would have been delayed for reasons unconnected with the Government's economic measures, so that we are still in the dark as to what the actual savings in this current year may be. But they must be between £1 million and £7 million.
It is hard to believe that this sum, whatever it may be, makes any worthwhile contribution to the Chancellor's problem in this present financial year. We were told in the debate that the contribution in the following financial year would be £4 million. Possibly that figure, too, will need adjustment, and we shall be pleased to hear from the Minister what the adjustment will be.
If that figure is also wrong and these cuts are designed in fact to make a contribution on a larger scale in the following year, they must make nonsense of the Minister's implied intention to restore them to the programme in the following year. I ask him for a firm statement of whether it is his intention to proceed with next year's programme as already planned plus the deferred projects, which is what we were given to understand, or whether we are to expect another batch of deferments in, say, January for the following six months so that the present deferments can take their proper place in the programme.
When one gets down to it, would it not be better for the Minister to admit that all of this was a most mistaken policy pressed on him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that there could be fair


shares of postponements for all? I believe that to have been the real argument. Would he not have done much better to convince the Chancellor that the increasing productivity of the road construction industry depends above all on continuity and on greater continuity and that there is a strong case for longer-term planning, even longer-term than has been experienced in the past, for long-term contracts relating to a series of starts so that contractors themselves can achieve greater continuity in the use of labour and machines? If, as I suspect, he will, the right hon. Gentlemen gives an answer relating to the proper apportionment of resources, he must realise and he must admit that there is a most considerable reserve of resources already within the industry which longer-term planning would release at no economic cost.
In the debate on 3rd August, the Minister complained, I thought with some sense of grievance, that the Opposition had bequeathed to him a road programme which was increasing at the rate of 14 or 15 per cent. each year. Yet the Government's National Plan says nothing which suggests that that policy and that rate of growth was wrong. It says:
Exchequer expenditure on new and improved major roads, which is now planned five years ahead and reviewed each year, is rising rapidly … Despite the rising rate of expenditure, the present programme will not fully keep pace with the growth of traffic and on many of our roads, and particularly at peak periods, congestion will unfortunately get worse
There can be no possible doubt that for many years ahead the road programme must be above, and well above, the average of national growth. In this we certainly have nothing with which to reproach ourselves, and this is a policy which in due course we shall pursue again. It is only evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's ineffectiveness in the Government that he has apparently been unable to convince his colleagues that this is an essential economic truth.
I have quoted one extract from the National Plan, and I want to avoid quoting many, but I must say that the most striking feature of the transport section of the National Plan is its dissimilarity from Labour views and policy expressed both before and after the election. For example, as we all know, in respect of railways the Shadow

Minister of Transport before the election and the present Minister after the election both said that major closures would be held up until the regional boards had drawn up comprehensive plans, and they so have been. Yet, in spite of these declarations, which, after all, were not a first thought on coming into Government but were planned thoughts from long before, the National Plan continued to forecast the elimination of the railways working deficit by 1970 based on the proposition that:
substantial progress continues to be made in implementing closure proposals
The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the Plan represents what he is seeking to do, or he should say that it does not.
Equally, it has always been one of the planks in the Labour platform that Conservative Governments have favoured private road haulage to the detriment of the railways. Yet the Plan itself confirms the fact that:
The rapid growth of road transport in recent years appears to have arisen to a greater extent from a faster growth in activities that depend on the services of road transport than from actual diversion from rail to road
There was no favouritism and no diversion and no bias in my right hon. Friends' policies in those days and the Plan admits it.
Again in regard to the railways the Plan sets out in paragraphs 10 to 13 of Chapter 12 an account or history of British Railways under Lord Beeching, whose appointment Labour repeatedly criticised and whose services the Government have since rejected. Above all else, Labour has held tenaciously to the doctrine of the integration of transport which is actually mentioned in the Gracious Speech and to which I shall refer in more detail in a few minutes. But the House should note that there is no reference at all even to co-ordination—if the two words are synonymous—in the transport chapter of the National Plan.
The fact is that the necessary trend of transport policy as set out in the National Plan and the time-honoured doctrines of the Labour Party are as different as chalk from cheese and the National Plan itself is a very good monument indeed to what has been achieved during these past years. Here, then, we have two


positive steps which the Minister has taken—first, his ready adherence to the Conservative road programme and, secondly, his acceptance of the evolution of Conservative policies in the National Plan.
Yet a host of problems have lain in his in-tray. For example, there is the Smeed Report on Road Pricing, a most significant and interesting report on which the Government should certainly make some statement of policy. There is the mounting pile of recommendations for rail closures. There is the problem of congestion in London, ever-worsening despite the emergency schemes put in hand by the London Traffic Management Unit, again a brain child of the Minister's predecessor. The improvement of the commuter services is under consideration. There is the second Beeching Report which the Minister dismisses as not being relevant to present problems, but some of whose recommendations are specifically mentioned in the National Plan as part and parcel of progress towards reducing the railways deficit. There is the Geddes Report on Road Haulage Licensing. There is the Report on experimental studies of rural bus services. There are the liner trains.
On 9th November, the Prime Minister said:
We have given authority for the liner trains to go through"—
this was a powerful phrase hovering between Marshal Petain and the Windmill Theatre—
and have made the Government's position clear to the trade unions
Unfortunately, the trade unions do not appear to have got the message and only on Sunday last a senior official, presumably of the N.U.R. was reported in the Sunday Telegraph as explaining the union's present case on liner trains with the words:
They may prove to be the salvation of our industry but we do not want private hauliers coming and skimming off the profits
In those words—and let us face it—lies the whole spirit of what a good Socialist believes in—integration, or more politely and acceptably, co-ordination. In the words of the old tag, "What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own" Coordinate with me, but do not be so rash as to expect any co-ordination from me.
The fact is that the Labour Government and the whole Labour Party have an entirely split mind on the whole subject of private enterprise and the profit motive. I went last week to the annual meeting of the Institute of Directors. [Laughter.] Why not? Every hon. Member would gain a great deal by going to that most interesting meeting.

Mr. Ron Lewis: We were not invited.

Sir M. Redmayne: I will arrange for an invitation to the hon. Gentleman if he wants it.
The Chancellor went to that meeting and cooed like a turtle-dove about the necessity for profits, happily disgregarding the words of his own Prime Minister in the House the day before who, when boasting of the Government's taxation policy, said that it would attack
the arrogant citadels of fiscal privilege in order to create a climate of equity and justice" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 35.]
How much the Prime Minister and the spokesman of the N.U.R. must dream of the day—I do not think that it will ever come—when the Government's majority will be sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to put the skids under private industry!
I appreciate that the Minister will complain that some of these problems which I have said are lying in his in-tray have been in his hands for only a few months. But it is now a full year of government and surely some of them are ripe for decision. I hope that we shall hear something worthwhile today. But the truth is that even if he seeks to justify his actions during the last year by retailing something of what he has done he will be hard put to it, if he is hard put to it to claim anything in the National Plan, to claim any success which is not an inheritance from his predecessor. "Marples must go"—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone."] He has gone to learn a great deal which the present Minister does not know.
The fact is that transport is a field so thick with warring interests that almost any action by a Minister, if he is a Minister inclined to take action, particularly action so decisive as that taken in this field by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, produces instant


and hostile reaction. The slogan "Marples must go" was to my right hon. Friend a badge of pride, a signal of achievement. I wonder whether a similar slogan relating to the present Minister could be regarded in that light. My right hon. Friend has gone, as hon. Members have said, for very obvious reasons, and transport and the Ministry of Transport are the worse for it. On my way down the motorway only two days ago I saw a dusty vehicle on the hard shoulder which had broken down. On the back, scrawled in the dust, was the message, "It must be Fraser in my tank". So much for the past year.
I turn to the proposals in the Queen's Speech which are the concern of the Minister of Transport. I am not sure whether he is to claim paternity for the Bill relating to the Devlin Report. Of course, the initiative lay with the Minister of Labour. About that I will only say that I hope that the Government will not be persuaded by the diehards in their party that they should not act, by legislation or administratively, on all the recommendations of that very good Report.
Next, there will be the Bill concerned with road safety. We shall be interested to learn from the Minister whether this is to concern itself solely with the implementation of that part of the 1962 Act which deals with drink and driving or whether he has more far reaching proposals. If the latter, I would say only this at this stage. None of us can fail to agree that the promotion of road safety must have the highest priority, but at the same time every effort to improve road safety must be level-headed and free from any sort of hysterical reaction to casualty figures, which, although of course serious enough taken in isolation, are only a small part of the inescapable toll from all causes of death by misadventure.
We should not allow ourselves to be panicked into unnecessary speed limits, especially overall speed limits, which offer only a doubtful contribution to the problem when there are so many other factors on which we should concentrate—standards of vehicle maintenance, road lighting, road design, road signs, mobile police, and so no. Nor do I accept the argument that the experience in the United States of the overall speed limit is

necessarily relevant to our own problem. Whatever else may be said about the American way of life, it has led to a situation in which American vehicles are much more uniform in performance than those on our roads.
In our case, a high overall speed limit might be a positive persuasion to drivers to drive unsafely at the maximum, although lacking the capacity to do so. The fact that our economy in respect of motor vehicles differs from the American is no citicism of our own motor industry which thrives on the fact that its range is so diverse. We should seek to treat ourselves as being adult in these matters and to bring others who are less adult in their behavious—the careless, the selfish and, above all, the impatient—up to the general standard and not to drag the competent down to the level of the incompetent. We shall be wise if we have that principle in mind when we consider the Bill.
I should like to hark back briefly to the question of fog hazards on the motorway about which the Minister answered a Question last Wednesday. He has since had a meeting with the police and county surveyors last Friday, and I hope that he will have something to say about it today. The right hon. Gentleman shows himself to be unduly cautious. I put to him the proposition, which may or may not have merit, that he should consider the temporary installation of fog lights on the motorway similar to aircraft landing lights. I am sure that it ought to be possible to obtain equipment with which to instal a chain of fog lights on a considerable length of motorway attached perhaps to the existing marker posts which are a common feature of many lengths of motorway. The Minister said the other day that the current is not available for them, but every road sign on the motorway has current for the purpose of illumination, and surely for experimental purposes that would be sufficient.
I raised the question of rearward-facing foglamps on vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman said that this could be only a long-term policy. Of course it could be only a long-term policy if it is to be compulsory. I should like to know whether they can be permitted for voluntary use so that those of us who use the


M.1—that splendid but anxious road— can have a means of protecting ourselves if we are held up in congestion.
The whole problem of visibility on motorways stems from the lack of any measure of distance and speed. On any other road the dim glimpse of a tree, the sight of a rough verge, the feel of a corner give a driver some sense of his whereabouts, some check on his speed. But on the motorway by day, when the visibility is variable, there is no hint of danger until something looms out of the fog, and then it may be too late. By night, even in clear conditions, the effect of a long vista of rear-lights is mesmeric. It is the man with slow reactions who fails quickly enough to discern that the vista is no longer on the move who can be innocently the greatest danger to his fellow travellers. There has been a good deal of comment on the suicidal behaviour of drivers who drive dangerously in these conditions. I believe that often they do not wilfully drive dangerously. They simply lack the necessary reaction to appreciate quickly enough when there is a change in the speed of traffic which they are following.
I said the other day that we would support any bold and large-scale experiment. If some of the right hon. Gentleman's experiments are not as successful as others we will not cavil at them on that account. But we cannot support a vacuum; we cannot support nothing. I hope that we shall hear today that the right hon. Gentleman has some concrete propositions in this matter.
I must turn to two paragraphs in the Gracious Speech which offer a good deal more lively controversy. The first is that proposing legislation to remove the limitations impeding the proper use of the manufacturing resources of the nationalised industries. The railway workshops have done a good job in their day, and still do a good job. With the passing of steam, the work required of them has been less, although there are still 5,000 diesel and electric locomotives in their care. But it is claimed, particularly by the railway unions, that they should be permitted to maintain their labour force by taking on work outside the immediate requirements of the railways in competition with private industry. This claim is made in spite of the fact

that all thought in industry—this must be equally the concern of the Minister of Technology—and a large part of the National Plan, is devoted to methods of saving labour and re-using it to better purpose.
It is also repeatedly suggested that the inability of the railways to do work other than for their own use stems from some high-handed action by the Conservative Government. I would remind the House that this principle was specifically enshrined by the then Labour Government in the 1947 Act and has not been changed since. It is still, as far as I know, supported by British Rail.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): That is not quite correct.

Sir M. Redmayne: If it is not correct, the hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to say so.
Evidence taken by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1960 on this subject is at best conflicting in respect of the ability of the railway workshops to cost their production of new output separately from their major work of maintenance. Without such accurate costing, no one can tell the extent to which work sold outside at prices competitive with private industry is profitable in its own right. Inevitably there is a grave risk that such work undertaken solely to maintain the labour force will do nothing but add to the already enormous deficit of the railway operations in general. I will not pursue these arguments now; they will arise in full on the Bill.
However, the Government propose to move in a wider field. We all have recent recollections of the increase of acquisitions by the Transport Holding Company, and particularly of the ingenious device by which the Transport Holding Company, by disposing of a part interest in its own Bristol Commercial Vehicles and Eastern Coach Works, which had been previously manufacturing vehicles for the nationalised industry alone, has obtained through Leyland Motors an outlet to a wider market.
The Transport Holding Company was a creation of the previous Government. It has done a good job under good management. Yet it was never the intention of the previous Government that the


company should have the unfettered right to expand at will its already large share of the transport industry. Of course, if an expansion is based only on good commercial reason, one must look carefully at it and perhaps accept it. At the same time, one must remember that the share of road haulage vehicles of the Transport Holding Company has risen sharply— from 5 per cent. to 9 per cent. of the total fleet since even the Geddes Report was published. And added to that are the vehicles used by British Railways. These nationalised industries, through these two sources, hold about 15 per cent. of the total road haulage stock. It should not be forgotten, either, that the Prime Minister is on record as saying in an interview after his return from Washington last year:
We have the system today where all the profitable traffics are cleaned off by road haulage
That is patently inaccurate, and the National Plan proves that it is inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
We have said in our policy statement that we shall rebuild the integrated system, not so much on the basis of buying off every lorry, every truck, every little back-street garage … but on the basis of taking the lid off the already nationalised British Road Services
The Government cannot be surprised, therefore, if we regard these propositions with some suspicion. In the Prime Minister's words, in the debate on 9th November, he put it like this:
…the manufacturing establishments of our publicly-owned industries"—
and that goes wider than transport
will be freed from the vexatious, not to say ideological, restrictions on their ability to make a full contribution to our national production drive, including exports"—[OFFICIAL RF.PORT, 9th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 37.]
It may be vexatious that a nationalised industry should be expected to stick to its last, but it is not unreasonable to think it should do so until it can make a better job of that with which it has already been charged. As for the national production drive, there is certainly room for improvements in the productivity of the nationalised industries in their respective fields. But what concerns me much more is the remark at the tail end of the Prime Minister's description of this intention, which was not contained in the Speech itself, to the effect that they should

…make a full contribution to our national production drive, including exports".
Once again we have a restatement of the age-old Victorian fallacy that exports are to be got from the surpluses of home production. Or, if it is not that, are we to assume that it is the Prime Minister's intention to have something different; say, that the manufacturing establishments of the nationalised industries are to be encouraged into the export trade in full accord with modern practice—that is, that there should be set up a market research organisation, an export sales organisation and that these things should be done so that the railways can have the full technical and commercial facilities at its disposal, based on up-to-date knowledge of the operating conditions of foreign railways? If that is the intention, then it is an enormous addition to the present manufacturing side of the railway industry.
If these industries are to go into the export trade on these terms—and since the risks of loss in such a trade are immeasurably greater—are we now to see the taxpayer subsidising the failure of the nationalised industries in the export field, on top of their deficits at home? I am sure that this would not be regarded as a particularly attractive proposition from the taxpayer's point of view, and I doubt if even the ideological enthusiasm of the Labour Party and those who support it would stand up to it for very long.
When one considers the subject and the words of the Gracious Speech, one realises that it is as well to consider the position in respect of the coal industry, the electricity industry and the gas industry. What about the gas industry? At present, that industry takes all its appliances and equipment from independent manufacturers, and this applies also to its manufacturing equipment. Is it the Government's intention to give manufacturing powers to this industry as well? I hope that the Minister concerned will answer that one. It seems to me obvious enough that the Prime Minister, foiled in his frontal attack on the commanding heights of the economy, has already determined—and has now ordered—that the heights shall be taken in the flank.
There has recently been in the Press some attempt to deride the use of the term "creeping nationalisation" It


matters little what term is used, the effect will be the same; an infiltration of the private economy supported by taxes drawn from the private sector. This is the real Socialism and the country, and perhaps the Liberal Party, should be awake to it.
Let the Government understand now that if we see in the Bill the intention to allow the nationalised industries to expand their activities in direct competition with private industry in a deliberate attempt to gather industrial power into the hands of the State, we shall oppose it just as hotly as we shall oppose the nationalisation of steel—for the effect, though slower, will be as damaging to our industrial strength.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman also going to oppose the creeping nationalisation of industry in which the State is already providing millions of pounds of capital to develop, such as the motor car trade and the steel industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman objecting to that kind of creeping nationalisation as well?

Sir M. Redmayne: I do not accept that as a definition of "creeping nationalisation". In any case, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own contribution to the debate.
I turn to that sentence in the Gracious Speech which promises proposals for the more effective co-ordination of inland transport. In this respect, I will quote some remarks made by the Minister in reply to Questions as long ago as 8th February last. The right hon. Gentleman said, when referring to transport:
I think that most people in the country nowadays accept that there is wasteful competition—most wasteful competition—in the provision of our transport services, and that there is very great need to achieve greater co-ordination, which is the object of the exercise ".
He went on later:
If this country is ever to get out of the difficulties it is in, it will have to get rid of wasteful competition. That is exactly what we are seeking to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 33–4.]
The Government cannot have it both ways. Are we to understand that in pursuit of the doctrine of integration of transport competition is wasteful, but that in

pursuit of the dogma of freedom for the nationalised industries it is beneficial? Are not the two things exactly opposite in meaning? I am inclined to ask, in answer to the Prime Minister, "Who is being ideological now "?
The fact is that integration, or coordination, of transport is the hoary pith of Labour dogma. It is the pathetic belief that by waving the wand of integration— although it is not a wand in fact but a thickish statutory stick designed to steer traffic into channels ordained by Government—it can be possible, without affecting the efficiency or the costs of industry, to produce profitable loads for means of transport which cannot earn the right to carry those loads by fair and efficient competition.
It was said earlier in the year that the Prime Minister offered to Dr. Beeching the task of studying the possibilities of integration. It was said equally that this was not acceptable to the Cabinet—unless Dr. Beeching would do this work with Socialist watchdogs at his elbow. It was said that, not unreasonably, being a single-minded man, he refused to do the work under those conditions; and the Government and transport lost a most valuable servant.
So they turned to Lord Hinton, and made him a temporary civil servant for their greater security. It was said later in the year that Lord Hinton had reported to the Minister in a sense most unacceptable to him and had been told to start again and to get a different result. As we noted, during the Recess Lord Hinton was quietly transferred to a post within the Government's patronage and since that time all has been wrapped in mystery, despite the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary, who did his best to inform us, though unsuccessfully.
We shall listen with interest to the proposals which the Government now propose to bring forward against the best advice which they could command, and in view of the successive promises of an early statement I hope that we will hear them from the Minister today. I do not anicipate that they will have much of a reception either in the House or in the country. And indeed, if the attempt to integrate or co-ordinate is to be carried out with he same singular lack of success which has dogged the vital proposition


of liner trains, if the unions are to be as stuffy and old-fashioned in the implementation of integration as the Government which in this day and age propose it, then we shall be in a very poor fix. The fact is that the National Plan itself proves beyond doubt that both road and rail are capable of providing services which meet the growing needs of industry.
Co-ordination exists, though undoubtedly it can be improved if some of the outdated prejudices can be shaken off. Services are, and can be, further provided by rail, road or sea which, by the free choice of manufacturers, can best be used to suit their particular purpose, market and product. Surely the Government would do better to abandon the ageing hobbyhorse of integration and concentrate on the far more worthwhile task of seeing that the transport facilities of the country are capable of carrying the loads which must come to them in ever increasing quantity if we are to see any industrial and economic progress.
As for the Minister, let me say this. During this week I had the pleasure of listening to Peter Ustinov making a speech to the Institute of Directors. He said—although I am not sure that I agree with him—that in all political parties today the distinction between Left and Right is dead and that in its place there are only, in any party, the progressive and the petrified. With regret, I can only say that neither in this House nor in the country has there been any remote suspicion that the Minister is progressive. Nor would it appear that his role in the coming year, as defined by the policies of his Government, is likely to show him in any different light. Petrified policy, petrified Minister, for an industry which deserves, by its very nature, a different fate. I trust that it will not have to wait too long.

4.23 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I should inform the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Red-mayne) straight away that for at least 80 per cent. of his speech it appeared to the rest of the House that his right hon. Friend who will wind up the debate for the Opposition was petrified. [HON. MEMBERS:"He was."] It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to

make personal attacks on me, but I will begin by taking up one of the points he made towards the end of his speech, when he made a most offensive allusion to Lord Hinton. He said that Lord Hinton had been called in to do a job as a temporary civil servant and that—or so I gathered from his remarks—he had, during the Recess, been removed to another post under Government patronage. [Interruption.] I thought that it was an offensive remark.
Lord Hinton was not removed to another post under Government patronage. Lord Hinton had a post with the World Bank at the beginning of the year. When I asked him to do a job in the Ministry he said that he would need to get leave from the World Bank to do the job temporarily. He asked the World Bank for leave to do that job for the Government in this country, always making it clear to me that as soon as he had completed the job he was to undertake he would wish to take up his appointment again with the World Bank. In due course, he said to me that he had completed the job which he had been given to do and would it be all right if he returned to his appointment. What was I to say? "Of course ", I said, and he went back to the World Bank. Thus, he was not being used merely as a tool of the Government. Nor was he shoved into some other post.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir M. Redmayne: If that is—and I do not doubt that it is—a true statement of the fact, I will admit that in that particular respect I was mistaken, and I withdraw that particular aspect of what I said.

Mr. Fraser: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
In moving this Amendment it appeared to the House that the right hon. Gentleman was going to urge upon the Government, and was going to commend, some measures for
the modernisation of industry, notably in the fields of transport and technology.
I heard every single word he said, but I did not hear him make any such suggestion at all. Not one single proposal did he make as to any way in which industry could be modernised, notably in


the fields of transport and technology, or, indeed, anywhere else.
The right hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying something about technology and industry generally, addressing his remarks to the Minister of Technology, and I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend will reply adequately to that part of his speech later on in the day.
Then he went on to deal with transport, and, understandably, he started with the road programme, and, of course, he said that the Opposition were in no way ashamed of the road programme which they bequeathed to their successors. Nor did he think they were ashamed for having failed to bequeath to their successors a growth in the economy out of which expansion of the road programme was to come. Nor did he say that, notwithstanding the present economic situation they left, they would not have had a much bigger cut in the road programme than that announced in July this year.
The truth is that in the early summer of this year the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were demanding a very severe cut in public expenditure. They have not yet told us where the cut was to take place. They were demanding a cut in public expenditure. The Government, having inherited programmes of public investment not being matched by a growth in the economy, had to increase taxation to make it possible to carry through those programmes. Did the Opposition vote in favour of the increased taxation necessary to carry the programme through? No. Of course they voted against the increase in taxation. So they wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend more money, but they were not willing even to take that which he now has from taxation to incur that expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman just does not have a case at all.
Of course he repeated what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said at the beginning of August, when we last debated transport, about the danger of the men and the machines being out of work. We wanted continuous work on the road programme. What he was not

able to do was to show us that as the consequence of the decision taken in July this year the men and the machines are idle. And, of course, they are not. What we made clear at that time was that the industry was in great danger of being overloaded. And it was. It most certainly was. I said at that time that we had £300 million worth of work in hand, and we still have.
What we did at that time was to cut our coat according to our cloth. We had to match our commitments to the resources available, and we did that. We took care to ensure that it was the most essential roads which were continued without any interruption at all. The roads to the docks were excluded from the deferment. Roads in the development districts, in unemployment areas— had they been stopped it would probably have led to there being more unemployment in those areas—were not deferred at all. Roads on which work was already in hand and which, if the next part of them were not done, would have been rendered worthless were not stopped either; they were not suspended at all. As the result of our applying our deferment to public capital works discriminately, as we have done, we have ensured that the industry has continued to be fully engaged, and we have ensured that the nation is getting the best possible return for the investment it is making.

Captain Walter Elliot: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that growth of the road programme is essential for the economy to grow, just as essential as if the investment were made in machinery? Does he not realise that our charge against the Government is that their cuts always act against investment and not consumption?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has got it quite wrong, because his party was arguing for cuts in public investment earlier this year. That was what it was arguing for—cuts in public investment.
The truth is that we have at the moment, notwithstanding the deferments of July, the biggest road programme under way this country has ever had. This happens to be so. The biggest road programme this country has ever had is under way at the present time, but if


the Opposition is at all a responsible Opposition, and argues that there could have been no deferments in that road programme, argues that the programme which was lying ahead of us in the early summer this year should have been allowed to proceed uninterrupted, will they tell us what else they would have cut so that we could have continued with the road programme uninterrupted? Would they say from what other programmes they would have taken the resources required to maintain the programme uninterrupted? What reduction would i:here have been in schools or in hospitals or in houses? Really, the right hon. Gentleman should tell his supporters in the country where he would have made the cuts. But they have not thought of where they would make the cuts.
They are not really making any assessment at the present time of the economic situation within the country, the way in which we can best employ our resources in the interests of the nation. What they are doing is recognising that there are some people who complain that the roads are not being allowed to proceed as rapidly as we had hoped—as if the Tory Party would not have made a very much more severe cut than that which was announced by the six months' deferment announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July this year.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to a few other matters. I liked the reference he made to liner trains; I liked that one very much indeed. He referred to the liner trains and boasted about his bold, courageous right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). What was his attitude to the liner trains? He said that he would not give to the Railways Board approval for the capital investment in liner trains till it had reached complete agreement with the unions as to the operation of the trains. That was the decision from this bold and courageous right hon. Friend of his.
If I had waited for that, the first liner train would not have run last night. There would not have been a penny invested in them. They would not have started building them, or started the terminals, and the first train would not have run last night.

Mr. John Harvey: Very well timed.

Mr. Fraser: It was the right hon. Gentleman who decided the date of this debate.
But they would not have been built at all if I had not given approval, which his right hon. Friend would not give, because his right hon. Friend apparently did not have the courage to take the decision. I thought the right thing to do, after I had met the unions and got their attitude to the liner train terminals, was to go ahead with this technological development in rail operation in this country, so that when we got them running, as we have now got them running, we could iron out the difficulties, we could sort out the problems, we could go on to reach agreement with the unions, as I hope very much we shall do. But in any case, if we had waited to get the decision of the unions before we started we would not have spent a penny on the liner trains. Really, that was a disgraceful attitude on the part of the previous Administration.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Could the Minister tell the House what proportion of the ultimate investment envisaged in liner trains has so far been authorised and has taken place?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot give an answer to the last penny. All I can say is that the Railways Board has asked me for £6 million and I have authorised expenditure of £6 million in the liner train services, and if the Board comes back to me for more I do not think it will find me very difficult to persuade.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the problem of congestion in London. I noticed that he was encouraged to do this by a speech which was made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. In the week of the Motor Show the Leader of the Opposition discovered that there was very great congestion in the streets of London —and that the Minister of Transport was doing nothing about it! This is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. Did not they know—at least the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe should know—that a Measure was passed two years ago, the London Government Act, at the instance of the then Government, the present Opposition, transferring this


year all responsibility for traffic management in London from the Minister of Transport to the Greater London Council? They did it. Five years ago there could be a Marples pink zone. Today there cannot be a Fraser red zone, because there is no legal authority to do it.
Of course, they asked me what I am going to do to deal with the congestion between now and Christmas. I can only say that I am in the closest touch all the the time with the Greater London Council and with the Metropolitan Police, and I understand that on Thursday of this week, two days hence, they will announce their plans to deal with the problem of London traffic in this period leading up to Christmas. It is their responsibility. I think it takes a bit of swallowing, all this nonsense, all this criticism from the Opposition that the Minister of Transport, who has no legal authority to intervene at all, should somehow or another just push aside the greatest local authority in the world which got its present responsibility for roads only some six months ago.
But this does not mean that I am not concerned with congestion in London. In the early summer of this year, as the House well knows, the London Transport Board told me—it did not have to ask me, it merely told me—that it was going to put up the fares in the spring of this coming year, and it said that in consequence of this fares increase it calculated it would lose 1 million passenger journeys per day, Monday to Friday. I did not believe that London could take 1 million passenger journeys per day loss to public transport without more private vehicles being used. I did not think that London could take the additional private transport that would follow from that decision, so I made an arrangement with the London Transport Board that it would not increase its fares, but that the Greater London Council, together with the London Transport Board and the Metropolitan Police, would carry out a review.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): Ah.

Mr. Fraser: Is there something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hogg: I was merely expressing distress at yet another review. I said "Ah"

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman, who was sound asleep while his right hon. Friend was speaking, has perhaps not quite woken up and has not followed the discussion. I was saying that in the early summer I made an arrangement that the London Transport Board would not increase its fares and that the Government would make good any loss in revenue, and that at the same time I obtained agreement that the G.L.C., the London Transport Board and the Metropolitan Police would make a review of the traffic management measures which they could put into operation which might make it possible for the Board greatly in improve its bus services in London, including Marylebone. I wanted to see whether we could so improve the facilities by which the Board catered for the public need in London that we could put additional restraint on the use of the private car and provide an acceptable alternative service on public service vehicles.
The G.L.C., the Board and the Metropolitan Police produced a report a couple of weeks ago. It is not for me to expand on the extent to which this will assist the Board in doing its job, but I would have thought that anyone who had made a study of the problems in London, not to mention any of the other great cities in this country, would have recognised that there was a need to give clearer passage to the buses, to give greater priority to the buses, if London was not to die by strangulation. If the quality of living in London is to be maintained, it will mean the provision of more and better public passenger transport, and more people using it.
The right hon. Gentleman remembered that the Smeed Report was published while my predecessor was in office, and he asked when I would take action on it. I think the recommendation of the Smeed Report which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind concerns the "black box", and he went on to talk about road pricing. He knows that it would take many years to introduce this system of road pricing. This is not something that can be done overnight, but perhaps he did not realise that. He probably thought that all I had to do was to make an Order saying that from tomorrow everybody will carry one of the little black boxes while driving in London so that it will be possible to measure the miles they do and


charge them accordingly. This is not such a simple matter as that, and I am not sure that the best way to deal with it is to impose this restraint on private cars using the streets in the Central area of London.
For some time I have been discussing this matter with experts, including the Road Research Laboratory, of which, of course, Dr. Smeed is a member. Incidentally, perhaps I might remind the House that the Road Research Laboratory was brought under the Ministry of Transport by this Administration so that we would be able to work more closely together. I am in touch with the Laboratory and other experts in this field to consider whether, and to what extent the Government can take administrative and fiscal measures to deal with the private car, but we have to be reasonable about this. It is no crime to own a private car, and certainly no crime to want to drive a car once one owns it.
Various suggestions have been made about issuing permits on the basis of need. Up to now I have had the impression—in fact I still have it—that it would take a veritable army of bureaucrats to administer a system under which permits were issued to drivers on the basis of need. I do not know from which side of the House Members would qualify for a permit to drive into London, if from either side. Suggestions have also been made for the issue of supplementary licences, and for the introduction of different systems by which the Government might impose some form of road pricing.
The House must recognise, and the right hon. Gentleman really ought to know, that the Government could take action in this field only on the basis of statutory authority, which means that we have to know what kind of steps we are going to take before we seek to introduce new legislation in the matter, and I have not the slightest doubt that if we were to bring forward legislation on this subject at this time the Opposition would rise in their wrath to defend the right of the motorist to drive where he wanted, and when he wanted. I have not the slightest doubt about that, but we will not hesitate to bring our proposals to the House when we are ready to do so, and that may not be very far off.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some questions about co-ordination. In every developed country in the world one finds that the authorities are seeking to coordinate the different forms of public transport. That is certainly true throughout the whole of Europe. I also know that no country in the world has solved the problem. In this country, under a Labour Government in 1947, we made a brave attempt to deal with the problem by introducing the Transport Act of that year. A co-ordinated system was being built up, but the Tories set about reversing the process as soon as they took over in 1951. They introduced various Acts, culminating in the 1962 Act which wound up the British Transport Commission and put an end to any attempt by the Commission to get co-ordination in inland transport. The Tories' solution was competition, and this was plainly and foolishly said in 1962. They said that anything that did not pay ought to be scrapped.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My right hon. Friend has talked about the same thing in Manchester. Everybody sympathises with the great difficulties that are involved, with the necessity for doing something, and with the magnitude of the problem, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, the proposal for closing the four railway stations in Oldham and thus congesting roads already congested and costing millions of pounds to widen was turned down by the Transport Users Consultative Committee two months ago. We are still awaiting that decision, and until my right hon. Friend makes it there is complete uncertainty. The Railways Board is proposing to withdraw privilege fares and to make travel more difficult. If that decision is not announced, there will be a much more increased tendency to use traffic on the roads, and the sooner it can be announced the better. It is a matter of great importance to the town that my right hon. Friend should make that announcement.

Mr. Fraser: I think my hon. Friend appreciates that it would be a bit difficult for me, in the course of my speech today, to make decisions on every proposed passenger closure in this country and to recollect and take a spot decision on the advice that I have from the T.U.C.C. in each case.
My hon. Friend says he has waited six weeks or two months for a reply after the T.U.C.C. report on hardship. It does not make a recommendation in favour of closing the line, or against closing the line. It makes a report on the hardship which would arise if the service were withdrawn. Consequent upon receiving its report it is frequently necessary for me to have consultations with the Railways Board and sometimes, further consultations with the T.U.C.C. I cannot say what the precise state of play is in the case of the Oldham line, but I have heard what my hon. Friend has said and I will have a look at it.
I do not think that that detracts from anything I have said about the Tory Party's determination to scrap everything that did not pay. I have certainly reprieved a number of railway lines that lost a lot of money because I believed that the services were essential in the area, that they were meeting a social need that otherwise could not adequately be met. In a good many of those cases I believe that the aim of co-ordination was furthered by the refusal of consent to closure. In other cases, equally, I have believed that co-ordination was assisted by my granting consent to closure and by concentrating our attention on the provision of alternative public services.
I want to go on to show how I have approached this matter of co-ordination of transport. It would have been easy for me merely to return to the provisions of the 1947 Act. That is not what we promised in our election manifesto. I am not saying that there may not be a case for establishing some kind of central authority, but I consider, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, that it would be better for the Government to identify the problems, and there are many, and bring forward solutions. That is why I put a number of studies in hand. I said I hoped that they will report before the end of the year. I never said at any time since I took over my present job 13 months ago that I would be able to report before the end of this year. I recognised the magnitude of the task which lay before me, and I recognised that countries all over the world have been grappling with this problem and not one has found a solution. I did not think it likely that I would find the solutions and be able

to bring them forward before the end of 1965. So I always said "Give me until the end of 1965."
These studies have proceeded against the background of my belief that very great social benefit arises from reversing the current trend and putting traffic now carried by road on to the railways. I believe that many people, of all political parties, and of none, are convinced that the social needs of this country would be more adequately met if we could get a lot of traffic now travelling on the highways back on to the railways. It would obviously mean a fuller utilisation of the nation's investment in our railways system.

Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withing-ton): Surely the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the merit of the traffic surveys which were initiated by his predecessor, and which, when they come to report, will make a great contribution to what he is now doing?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. The conurbation, transport and land use surveys to which the hon. Gentleman refers were started by my predecessor and by myself. A good many of them are going on. All of them are of very long term, because they are not just traffic surveys, they are transportation and land use surveys, and they will be of very great importance. It will not be possible to determine the full range of transport services in the conurbations until these studies are carried out. In some of the conurbations it is likely that they will conclude that the only proper way to provide a public passenger transport service will be by the creation of one great new authority, which will run the buses and the trains, and perhaps other forms of public passenger transport. I think that this is very likely, and in any case there will have to be better co-ordination than there is at present.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether these studies will be published and generally available? Can he also indicate whether the special study in connection with Metropolitan congestion will be eventually published because, though Metropolitan congestion is under discussion, the principles for its solution can be applied to every other conurbation and town in the country which is suffering?

Mr. Fraser: I have always made clear that the studies I have had carried out are not studies in a form which leads to the preparation of a report capable of being published and being debated in the House. I have always made clear that these studies must go on in a Government Department which is doing its job properly. They are studies which lead to the Minister bringing forward proposals to the House and it is then that the relevant material collected in the course of the study will, I hope, be put before the House so that there may be an intelligent discussion about it.
In expressing my desire to have traffic moved from the road to the railways, and to try to ensure that the railways will get a better share than they have been getting in the past of new traffic, this does not and cannot mean that all existing railway lines should be preserved. On the contrary, I believe that it is essential to stop wasting the precious resources of the nation on unproductive services, so that we might have more resources to devote to technological advance on the railways, on which the country's social and economic wellbeing depends. I believe that we do not have as good a railway service as we ought to have, as we could have. We built the first railways in the world. We undoubtedly at one time built the best railways in the world, but we are not doing that at the present time. More and more people are convinced that we are not doing it because we spend so much of our resources carrying on with railways which are old and little-used, employing manpower unproductively. If we are going to make sense of the National Plan, from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted so extensively, it will be necessary for us to proceed with the closure of a lot of unproductive services and release a lot of railway workers from those unproductive services, so that we may concentrate our attention on those railway services which will provide an ever-improving transport service, and relieve a lot of pressure upon our roads.
In dealing with closures I have not merely looked at the loss incurred. This is the point I tried to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham a few minutes ago. I have taken the social aspect fully into account and I have ensured all the time that regional plans

for economic development are not put in jeopardy. Regional economic development and planning councils are consulted in all cases. It is a fact that the final decision remains with me, and I have to carry the can at the end of the day, not the T.U.C.C. or the regional planning councils, or anyone else. I have to take the credit or the blame at the end of the day, and I find that there is very little credit, but that there seems to be blame all along the line.
I should say, however, that the Railways Board is very much alive to the challenge of our times. Despite what I have said about our not having as good railways as some other countries we find that modernisation and technological progress is going ahead. There has been a considerable extension of electrification, and modern signalling is going in which is as good as the best in any other country. The company trains have been well worth while, carrying oil, steel, cement and motor cars, in addition to the liner trains to which reference has been made. Investment is now running at £120 million a year.
I now want to deal with the Transport Holding Company about which the right hon. Gentleman had something to say. It is an astonishing thing that after the Tories had sold off all the lorries they could sell to private enterprise—that is what they did after 1953—the remaining British Road Services maintained such a high standard of service to its customers. It provided the most efficient public road transport service in this country.
The previous Government stood in the way of expansion. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise that there was a difference between the two sides of the House in respect of the limitations put upon the nationalised industry His right hon. Friend did not permit the Transport Holding Company to acquire any new businesses without his approval —and it did not get his approval. I, on the other hand, removed the need for it to come to me for approval, except in cases where it incurred an expenditure of more than £250,000. I encouraged it to go out and acquire private enterprise companies which would be a valuable addition to its enterprise.
It has been able to do this to a substantial extent. It has made acquisitions of private enterprise companies to the


value of about £8 million. As the right hon. Gentleman admitted, this has meant a considerable strengthening of the public sector of road haulage. This brings me to the point at which I must say something about the way in which we shall get road-rail co-ordination going. Since I have been in this office I have impressed on the British Railways Board and the Transport Holding Company that they are accountable, through me, to the same shareholders—the British public. I expect them to co-operate and to coordinate their services, and not engage in wasteful competition with each other. We have to get the Chairmen of the Boards together to discuss what they have been doing and to understand that they have been engaging in wasteful competition with each other. That is the sort of thing that I am now bringing to an end.
One of the results of this policy is that, consequential on some of the studies that I have been talking about, which have been carried on during this year, I hope to announce quite soon an arrangement under which British Rail and British Road Services will jointly operate a new parcels and sundries service throughout the country. Each will play the part for which it is best fitted in providing the kind of services to which I think the customer is entitled. I am also seeking further measures of freight co-ordination by which the railways will undertake the longer hauls for which they are best suited. On the passenger side, I am in touch with all the main transport authorities in an endeavour to get improved road-rail co-ordination—to get the buses to meet the trains, and to have bus stations at the railway stations. I want better arrangements for connections and, where possible, through ticketing. Of course, there are difficulties in the way, and vested interests are involved.
The British Transport Commission did not make much progress in this field in the time it had responsibility for the matter, but if there is the will to make substantial arrangements I am sure that they can be made. I started on this when I had to deal with the withdrawal of rail passenger services, 12 months ago. I have taken this very much further now, and am in touch with all the main providers of public passenger transport

services. I am sure that we can make a big contribution in this field.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned docks and ports. I have been speaking for too long, and I must not delay the House much longer. At times of heavy trade there is much cluttering up in the docks, together with congestion and frustration. I believe that too big a proportion of general mechandise cargoes moves from the factories to the ships by road. More should go by rail. This will be facilitated by the adoption of the system of containers, loading and collection in the areas of manufacture. In this way it will be possible to use the railways to a much greater extent than they are being used at the present time in taking general merchandise to the docks.
The Economic Development Council for the Movement of Exports is now urgently considering every aspect of the situation, and collecting information not hitherto available and bringing together all the many and disparate interests involved in this activity, on which so much depends. But more berths are required, especially deep water berths. The Government got the National Ports Council interim plan in July. This plan recommended the modernisation of 46 existing berths and the construction of 72 new berths in 14 major ports at a cost of £150 million.
The Committee recognised that other work was also needed and estimated that no less than £234 million would require to be invested in port facilities in the next five years. Investment of this magnitude has to be carefully planned to ensure that the nation gets the best return for the employment of its scarce resources. Those who have complained that decisions concerning schemes costing tens of millions of pounds have not been taken in the intervening four months since July have little regard for the magnitude of the exercise involved.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Devlin Report. As he recognised, Lord Devlin's Committee reported to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and it will be he who will be responsible for the legislation which is to follow.
The right hon. Gentleman also had something to say about the nationalised


industry's manufacturing powers, to which reference is made in the Gracious Speech. First, I removed the administrative restrictions put upon railway workshops by my predecessor and the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company. As a result of my removing those restrictions the railway workshops are now able to take orders to build oil tankers to run on British Railways. It was a disgraceful thing that the former Minister would not allow the railway workshops to build oil tankers for oil companies to run on British Railways.
About £17 million of public money is invested, or in process of being invested, in the modernisation of railway workshops. It would be indefensible if we were to leave the statutory restrictions upon the railway workshops, preventing the proper utilisation of these publicly-owned manufacturing resources. The right hon. Gentleman is right: as promised in our election manifesto, the statutory restrictions will be removed in a Bill which we shall bring forward at an early date. He need not fear that there will be any subsidised undermining or undercutting of private enterprise industry. I doubt whether he or anyone else really thinks that there will be any danger of railway workshops being subsidised so that we shall have subsidised competition with private enterprise industry.
What is really feared is that the railway workshops will start manufacturing for markets outside the railways in competition with private industry, and will do so with such efficiency and success that private industry will begin to feel the draught before long. I have probably gone on for too long, and I do not want to go on any longer.
Since we are talking about technology in transport as well as in other aspects of British industry, I want to say that we need all the advance we can get in technology in the interests of the country's prosperity. In the transport industry— certainly on the public enterprise side— we are taking full advantage of the technological improvements which have emerged in recent years.
The investment which has been undertaken both by the Transport Holding Company and by the British Railways Board testifies to this. They have been

given every possible encouragement under the present Government. We are not only encouraging investment but are taking steps to ensure that the investment will not be used competitively by one side of the industry against the other, but that the efforts of the whole of the public enterprise industry and, I hope in time, of the private enterprise industry too, will be co-ordinated so as the better to provide the transport service which the country needs.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. William Deedes: I noticed a few days ago a forecast, dealing with this debate, which said that the Minister was keeping something up his sleeve for his speech. In the event, it seems that this report was an exaggeration. I was dismayed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I was dismayed because it did not seem to offer awareness of the fact that, in so many respects in inland transport, the right hon. Gentleman is being overtaken by events. I find this a dismal feature of the Gracious Speech as well. Nothing he said showed any awareness of this fact or offered any proposal to act accordingly.
Of course, it is said to be all our fault, but this is a singularly bad subject for that approach. It is no good throwing back at us the question, "What did you do in the course of your 13 years?" because in this subject of all subjects, a great deal was done. In Dr. Beeching's Report on the railways and in Professor Buchanan's study of the roads, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) bequeathed the right hon. Gentleman two very good legacies. Both those technicians provided admirable examples of the technological approach to major physical problems and the right hon. Gentleman has great advantages in the amount of work they put in.
Where are they and their proposals now? Admittedly, both Dr. Beeching and Professor Buchanan postulated a rather radical approach to both road and rail which may not appeal to a Government so strongly conservative as this one. In view of the present approach of the party opposite, it must have come as something of an embarrassment to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to discover that the railways had been nationalised.
Even so, let me implore the right hon. Gentleman to take courage. I am certain that he will have the support of the Liberal Party in pursuing a dynamic transport policy—

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deedes: No, I will not give way at the moment. The hon. Member can say what he has to say later.
Yet, for a long time, we were told that these two men represented the wrong approach—

Mr. Popplewell: What did you do about it?

Mr. Deedes: Without co-ordination of their efforts, it was said we could have no solution. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that no country has solved this problem. A study is going on and we are to have the fruits of it in due course. The fact is that co-ordination is no better after 15 months of a Labour Government. Instead, the situation is steadily deteriorating. It is not the inaction which I find dismaying: it is the underrating of the nature of the problem.
I want now, as an example, to touch on one aspect only of this problem, but one which profoundly affects the lives of the constituents of many hon. Members, particularly those in the Home Counties or near London. I wish to say a word about the daily movement to and from London. As every hon. Member is aware who represents a constituency within 60 miles of the capital, this journey is increasingly a regular feature of life for millions and for a growing proportion of them it is a nightmare—" A Long Day's Journey Into Night".
The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not as good a system as we ought to have and which we want to have. His remark would be received with mocking laughter by some of the commuters who travel in my area. What frightens me is the apparent failure to grasp that this situation is getting steadily worse, and why it is getting steadily worse. Even to hold the present situation—I am talking now about the enormous traffic movement every day in and out of London— we should have to spend money on our lines of communication to the capital on a scale which has not yet been considered.
It is certainly not considered in the National Plan. I was interested to see what the National Plan had to say on this point. It forecast a decline in investment on the railways between now and 1970. How does that tally with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said?
What about the movement he spoke of from private to public transport? The South-East Survey—which appears to have got lost in the First Secretary's in-tray and which some of us look forward anxiously to hearing about in due course —gives some outline of this problem. I do not believe that the figures it gave were correct, although my Government were responsible for it. I do not blame right hon. Gentlemen for spending a little time in re-checking some of the data in the South-East Survey. In round figures, it told us that office jobs in London were running up by about 20,000 a year and that there could be about another 200,000 commuters, because of office development, entering and leaving London by about 1970.
It went on to say—on a basis of evidence which escapes me—that British Railways might be expected to cater for another 450,000 peak hour commuters in return for an expenditure on rail of about £100 million—£30 million of it on the Southern Region. I do not believe a word of it and I advise the Government not to believe it either. I believe that Dr. Beeching was very much nearer the mark.
I will remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Dr. Beeching said on this crucial subject. Page 20 of his Report in 1963 reads:
In essence, the problem is this. The capacity of the system carrying these services is limited by physical restrictions, particularly at the London end where so many services converge, and these restrictions could be removed only at very high cost. Many services are already saturated at peak hours, to the point where passengers suffer extreme discomfort and the volume of traffic continues to rise. The level of fares is too low to finance costly increases in system capacity, but the demand goes on getting heavier.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it goes on getting heavier all the time.
Examining the causes, I accept straight away that office development in London is a big factor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am trying to deal with this problem seriously. It is fair to add that


the last Administration would be open to the charge not that they allowed too much office building in London but that too much went on without sufficiently close study of the resulting traffic needs. That I would accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good hon. Gentlemen just concentrating on this and thinking that this is the answer.
Added to that are the workers who formerly lived in central London, who are now living in the outer ring and who now contribute about 7,000 families a year to the commuters on top of that total.
Then there are factors which no survey has yet mentioned. We have the policy of the Government, for which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is the main instrument, for dealing with the London housing problem by accelerating housing development in surrounding counties. The curious decision about Hartley, where somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 people are to go shortly, is one example of that. That policy must result in greatly increased use of travel facilities to London. That is clear.
Next we have the policy which the previous Administration initiated of adding expanding towns to new towns round London. We have Peterborough, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing has added Northampton, Ipswich, Newbury and possibly Ashford. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether this point is being made the subject of a technical study, because it ought to be. My impression is that a far higher proportion of the new population is commuting and will commute from expanding towns than ever did from new towns. At the birth of new towns 20 years ago, we believed that a self-contained community ought not to be closer than 40 miles from London, that is to avoid the magnetic field. Today, I would say that that figure is certainly over 60 miles and it might be over 80 miles. Within that limit, people will travel to and from London to work in ever-increasing numbers, and inside that distance a high proportion of new out-of-London population will try to keep jobs in London. I see no sign in anything that the Government have said or

done that they realise what these consequences will amount to.
Again, we are reaching saturation point in the morning and evening road traffic moving in and out of London. As the chaos that we have been witnessing in recent weeks deepens, some of those travellers will be thrown back on to the railways. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman hinted at that himself. Even if we have to introduce ultimately, as I believe we shall, a system something akin to toll gates around London applying some sort of price mechanism to vehicles wishing to use the inner areas of Central London, the argument that I am using still stands. During the next five years there will be a further move from the roads in and out of London to the railways in and out of London, and what has already happened to the buses suggests that. I think that I am right in saying that the movement from buses to rail in the last decade represents a fall of 25 per cent. in the loads carried on buses. That is not from buses to motor cars. A very sharp increase in that share has gone to British Railways and to the Underground.
The final reason why the problem is going to mount is that, for social reasons, the urge to live outside. London and ever a little further outside London is going steadily to increase during the next decade. All experience in other capitals points to that trend. I think those hypotheses are broadly sound—and the first thing that I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we ought to know far more about them.
There ought to be established right away a department of transport studies for the Metropolitan region. That is a crucial region for national movement and efficiency, and we ought to know more about the relationship of future population in the Home Counties and the sorts of demands that are going to be put on our railways and other communications in this region. There is need to estimate the sort of populations that we shall have to deal with in the course of the next decade. Beyond a certain point we cannot plan these population movements and trends. They will happen, and nothing short of physical controls will stop them. But we ought to be able to predict rather more accurately what those movements


may amount to than we appear able to do now.
To show how little we know, the Southern Region, which is responsible for at least, if not more than, half of that great population movement, has no clear idea what the demands will be in the next decade. The right hon. Gentleman said that the railways are alive to the challenge of the times. That is good. I agree. But are they alive to the demands which are going to come on them in the next five years? As far as the London Region is concerned, they are not. How can they be? We have not the machinery for ascertaining the facts and, when one thinks of the millions of people involved, it is an appalling situation. As far as they can, the railways are meeting the demand by cramming in more traffic, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the point is reached where capacity becomes the enemy of punctuality, because one hitch recoils not on two or three trains, but on six or eight. That is one of the main reasons for the failures on the railway system leading into London over the last few months for which the right hon. Gentleman, most unfairly, is always to blame.
We are asking the railways to deal with an enormous increase in peak traffic hours on almost the same basic system as they have had since the war. There comes a point when a souped-up system can be souped-up no more, and I suggest that we are appoaching that point on all the railway roads leading into London. The commuters curse British Railways and curse the right hon. Gentleman. In reality, the railways have gone a very long way to extracting the utmost out of their system by increased efficiency, and certainly I would say that of the Southern Region.
It is ludicrous to call the huge daily handling of workers in and out of London inefficient. There is no other capital in the world that does it. The truth is that we are without the social data and the capital resources to put right what has become an intolerable situation.
I want to end by laying stress on this urgent need for a thorough technical survey on the demands of the next decade as they will affect movement in and out of the capital. I am sure that it will point to the need for new construction

on a scale that no one has yet thought of, including our Administration and the Administration opposite. It may well be that we shall have to think in terms of building a new and very costly underground system south of the river, where only a fraction of the network of the Underground system operates at all; or perhaps it should be an overhead system. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the whole weight of what goes underground north of the Thames falls upon the Southern Region's electric system, with very much resulting confusion to longdistance rail traffic.
It is no good bemusing ourselves with jargon about checking London's growth, or decentralisation, or, still worse, staggering hours. No one is going to stagger hours unless he is compelled to, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that. Staggering hours is a chimera unless there is compulsion, which there cannot be, and the traffic schedules on all railways into London at peak hours prove that that is still the case, after 10 years of exhortation. By the end of the century, there may be a change, and London may be a different shape altogether. But that will not bring comfort to travellers in the next decade, and it is the next decade about which I am concerned.
I will not raise at any length the question of the Channel tunnel, which will increase enormously the complication of all the system. I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman what the decision is, because I realise that it is a big one. I hope he accepts, however, that a Channel tunnel will require another railway system altogether, and it will require very profound thought about the road system needed to handle up to a quarter of a million vehicles in and out of the tunnel in the course of a weekend. I am not anti-tunnel, but I am hopeful that before a decision is reached, people will weigh up what the physical consequences of it would be.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of coordination. In my view the co-ordination which has to be sought is between the planning departments of six or eight counties round London, London itself, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who knows a good deal of what is going on, and the transport undertakings.
That kind of co-ordination is crucial for the lives of millions of people, but before we can co-ordinate anything on those lines we must know more about the relationship of population trends to transport needs, particularly in the South-East. Until we do, travel to and from work will be increasingly hell. Our present methods of bringing people in and out of London are costing us millions of man-hours, and inefficiency on a prodigious scale. We have contrived in recent years to transfer slums from the back streets of east and south London to the railway tracks. Anyone who has witnessed what goes on at Liverpool Street will appreciate what I mean.
I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that, but I do blame the Government for under-rating the problem. I should like a clear answer to the question: is the Minister willing or not willing to put in hand this transport study on the lines I suggest? Is he prepared to get the facts? A great many people will be profoundly interested in his answer.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The whole House listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), which was in marked contrast to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), as it contained a number of constructive suggestions. I must admit that I agreed with nearly everything he said. It is true that the transport problems have been very much under-estimated by the Government and by everyone else. Some of the proposals advocated by him will have to be given much more serious consideration, and many of them adopted, if we are to solve our problems; particularly the need for more Underground lines in London and, maybe enforced restraint on road transport in our big cities.
More traffic studies of the London area are needed, but here I must add a cautionary word. When people demand more information and studies, I am always rather fearful that the demand may be an excuse for inaction. Looking at transport matters nationally, it is not the lack of information that is the trouble, but failure to put the information we

have into some form of coherent policy, and then into action.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe opened the debate with a speech that was largely political—naturally enough in the circumstances, because this is a political occasion. I shall not answer all his points—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport did so very effectively. When the right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by saying that my right hon. Friend was a petrified Minister he was a little far from the mark, as my right hon. Friend's reply showed himself to be a very spirited piece of petrification. He answered with great effect the case that was put against him.
We all admit—or, if we do not do so publicly, we should—that the Minister of Transport has the most difficult job in the whole Government. He has to deal with a range of almost intractable problems, and any solution he puts forward, even if only an amelioration, is bound to raise a mass of criticism and opposition from some quarter or another. He has to deal with both road and rail problems, and at every stage must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is to do anything at all adequate. To meet the London situation alone requires hundreds of millions of £s.
My right hon. Friend faces various problems. There is the problem of road transport, urban congestion and the extension of the inter-urban roads—the motorways, in particular. Secondly, the huge loss on the railways, and the closure of services, workshops, and the rest. All these things are creating enormous dissatisfaction amongst users of roads and railways and those who work on them, yet anything my right hon. Friend does to try to help the situation may bring satisfaction to some but will almost certainly infuriate many more.
I will not speak about the railways. As many of my hon. Friends here know the problem so well from personal experience—and are very critical of many aspects of my right hon. Friend's administration—I would rather leave comment to them. I am speaking today on transport, for the first time for many years, from the delicious irresponsibility of the back benches. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will not mind if in some of my remarks I am rather critical of


him. If I am it is more in sorrow than in anger.
The Minister's greatest difficulty is coordination. We used to call it integration and now we call it co-ordination, but whatever word we use the subject is equally difficult, and whatever way it is tackled will be equally unpopular. We all know what the problem is. It is of no use just stating, as my right hon. Friend did and as others do, that there is too much going on the roads and not enough on the rail. That is a platitude. What we want to know is: what can be done to overcome the present ridiculous situation in which the roads are overcrowded, leading to frightful congestion, delays and accidents, while the railways are losing enormous sums of money yet could deal with three times their present amount of freight and passengers? Can we do anything to get a satisfactory and acceptable co-ordination? If we cannot do very much beyond what is being done in the way of liner trains, and so on, where then do we go from there?
I am worried that those who consider the problem of our transport system shut their eyes to the basic trouble, and prefer to pretend that it is not there. The basic trouble is that in this country—as in every other country, almost without exception—we are bound to have a substantial loss on the railway system. We can have our liner trains—they may ameliorate the situation—and we can improve here or there, but increasingly in this country, as everywhere else, the roads are taking more goods and passengers and the railways are taking less.
It is of no use just looking at this as something horrid that will disappear one day. It is no use holding up our hands in horror, and saying that perhaps in 1970 or 1975 the railways will pay. We have heard that sort of talk for years past —that one day everything will be all right. It has never happened, and it will not—it just cannot be done. At the same time we have to make up our minds that we must run an efficient railway system. Someone, therefore, has decisions to make, apart from plans of co-ordination. There are no doubt many purely operational methods of co-ordination that can be looked at, and perhaps put into effect. They may be useful and may save a little

money, and, maybe, they will be convenient. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem is what general transport principles are to be adopted by the Government.
This is not a question of road versus rail. It is a question of public interest versus private interest. By private interest I mean perfectly legitimate private interest. It is obviously in the public interest that many more goods should go by rail than go at the moment—enormously more—but it is in the perfectly justifiable private interest of manufacturers and industrialists to send their goods by road as it is often cheaper, safer and quicker. How are we to get those goods from the road to the rail?
It is exactly the same with passengers. It would obviously be in the public interest if more used the railways for long distance travel, but they prefer to use their own cars for good reasons, or long distance buses, because these are cheaper or more convenient. We either have to force people to send goods by rail, or throw up our hands and do nothing. Or possibly make such a revolutionary change in the present fares and freight charges on road and rail as to induce goods which at present go by road to go by rail. It is the same with passengers.

Mr. Hogg: I am not trying to score a point, but when I hear the word "obviously" I am always suspicious. The right hon. Member says that it is obviously in the interests of the public that a great deal more traffic should go by rail than by road. I wonder why it is so obvious and why he thinks that is the case.

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member will take it from me that what I meant was that it is desirable.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member said that it was obvious.

Mr. Strauss: It is obvious in a situation where the roads are overcrowded and the railways have not enough trade that it is desirable that the roads should be relieved of some of the transport and that it should go by rail. I should not have thought that the right hon. and learned Member would question that for a moment.
I suggest that the Government should say one of two things. They should either say that it is possible by a complete change in freight rates between road and rail to get goods from the roads on to the railways, or they should say —maybe they should say this as well— as it is inevitable that the railway system of this country will lose enormous sums of money for years to come, may be as far as we can see ahead. We must decide how the deficit should be met. It can be done by deliberate subsidy from the Government. It should be openly admitted that this is the right thing to do as in France and other countries. At present we spend 9d. in the £ Income Tax on keeping the railways going. Why not admit it as Government policy that the railways are to be kept in a state of efficiency by a straightforward Exchequer subsidy?
Or—and this is a matter for Government decision and I want to know what the Government think on these lines— they should say that national transport should not get a subsidy and therefore if people choose for their convenience to use the roads on a large scale but yet want an efficient railway system, road users should pay sufficient in taxation to keep efficient the railway system which they use on many occasions, especially in emergency. In short, there should be a cross-subsidisation between the two forms of transport. Either that or State money in the form of subsidies. One or other of those policies should be arrived at and publicly declared.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I am completely with my right hon. Friend in his argument if he will preface his argument on the vital consequencies which flow from his reasoning by saying that the first priority has to be that the basic costings of road, rail and air transport must be seen to be equitable and fair.

Mr. Strauss: Yes, I think that is very important. There has been much controversy about the costings of road and rail transport. I do not know about air transport. I do not think there is yet any agreement about how properly to cost road and rail transport with its maintenance and other charges, but it is highly desirable that that should be done and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Soon after I took office I was able to get the services of an economist to make such a study. He has been looking into the question and I had hoped that he would be able to give me the information by now. He has not been able to do so, but I hope that some time in the spring we shall have this knowledge which is very much needed.

Mr. Strauss: The gentleman, is I know, a very able economist, but there are many other first-class economists in the universities who have been working for years on this problem; but there is not much agreement on the subject.
When my right hon. Friend tried to carry out his duty to bring forward a scheme of integration and co-ordination, I must say he went about it in the most clumsy way possible. Early in the year he appointed a complete outsider who knew nothing about transport—Lord Hinton. He is a brilliant man, but to bring him in from outside to present a programme of co-ordination was bound to lead to failure. It could do nothing else.
Then my right hon. Friend horrified many of us on this side of the House as much as hon. Members opposite when he suggested that this brilliant administrator and economist should spend a year studying the subject and produce a secret report which no one was allowed to see except himself; not those employed in the industry or Members of Parliament, the local authorities, or the public. I was amazed that my right hon. Friend should agree to such a proposal. I was even more amazed by the excuse he gave that this man would be a civil servant and therefore it was inappropriate for him to make a public report. Yet the most brilliant report published in the last few years was produced by Professor Buchanan who was then a civil servant. However, that chapter is now closed.
Speaking personally, and without responsibility, what I would have done —I said this in this House when the Beeching Report came out and when we opposed it strongly—would have been before any of the Beeching proposals were put into effect to ask Dr. Beeching himself to make a complete investigation of the transport system of the whole country. We should have had that report published and when it was before us we


could decide to act upon it or not as we thought fit. I should have liked Dr. Beeching to have done this. My right hon. Friend tried but he failed. I do not know the grounds of the failure. Dr. Beeching has stated that he could not carry out his task in view of the conditions imposed upon him. He said that publicly.

Mr. Tom Fraser: He said within the time available, because he was determined to return to I.C.I. on 1st June.

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps my right hon. Friend does not realise what Dr. Beeching said in public. I will quote him. In an interview which was published in the Observer Dr. Beeching was asked:
But would it not have been a good idea for you to conduct this wider investigation, this over-all look at Britain's transport, before you went
back to I.C.I.? Dr. Beeching's reply was:
Well, of course, other people's opinions may differ about that. But personally I am sorry that I saw no possibility of doing it satisfactorily under the conditions that were finally proposed.
This meant that, if those conditions had not been proposed, Dr. Beeching would have been able and willing to do it. I do not know what those conditions were. I think it is a thousand pities that any restrictive conditions were put on him at all and that they prevented him from making this report. Such a report from him would have been exceedingly valuable. If it had been made, we might now have been in possession of information which would have enabled the Minister to put concrete proposals before Parliament.
Both my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Ashford dealt with the subject of congestion in towns. It is not only in London that there is great congestion. There are other towns where congestion is already bad and is getting worse. It is no good saying that the Greater London Council is responsible for London and that the problem is a matter for that Council. This is a national problem. It must be recognised that vast numbers of people want to use their private cars, for perfectly good reasons. As the Buchanan Report says, people regard their cars as an extension of their homes. That is

very well put. They like being in their cars travelling to and from work.
For a variety of reasons, congestion will get worse in all towns, not only in London. We are coming to the end of the devices which traffic management committees, traffic engineers, and all the other very clever people who have done grand work, can possibly think up to obviate the trouble. Before long there will be nothing more which can be done to increase the flow of traffic. When that day arrives, something else must be done.
Two solutions are advocated by those who want to dodge the issue because it is an unpleasant one. One proposal is to put a number of car parks in the centres of cities and so absorb all the cars. As my right hon. Friend will agree that is likely to make the situation worse. If there are huge numbers of car parks in or near city centres, at the rush hour— early in the morning when cars are coming into the centres, or late in the evening when they are leaving—the congestion will be worse, because a large number of cars will have been attracted into the city centres which otherwise would not have been there.
Moreover, it is no use just advocating putting into effect the Buchanan proposals in relation to separation of traffic. They would cost thousands of millions of pounds. But as Professor Buchanan said, if these schemes were carried out completely there still would not be enough room in town centres for all the traffic wanting to pass through them.
Therefore, it is time that somebody decided that something must be done about this great problem, apart from the devices which have been adopted up to now. The choice is simple. There must be restriction on the number of cars in town centres by frustration or by planning. The Government may well say, "We do not want to plan. It is too difficult Let people be discouraged from going into town centres by frustration". The trouble about such a solution is that by so doing really essential traffic—those who need to be in the centres of towns for purposes of industry, commerce, services, and so on —would be prevented from entering. We want to ensure that cars which should be going into town centres are able to do so and are not held up by cars which need not be there.
Therefore, either there must be restriction by frustration or restriction must be achieved in some planned way. My right hon. Friend has said that he is considering planned ways. In the end, they all boil down to some form of tax on the car. The car is being taxed already. High prices are being charged for car parking in city centres. I think that is right. Logically, there is no difference between charging high prices for car parking in city centres and charging high prices for cars travelling in city centres. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Smeed proposals. I should like to be told whether intensive investigation is going on as to the practicability of these proposals.

Mr. Tom Fraser: It is.

Mr. Strauss: Whatever restriction is imposed will obviously be highly unpopular on all grounds. On political grounds a man will say, "I want to go into the centre of the city. I am a poor man. I cannot afford to pay the price whereas a rich man can. Therefore I am being penalised "Because of its unpopularity—again I am speaking with the irresponsibility of the back bencher—I prophesy that no Government will bring forward this solution in a year which is likely to be an election year. However, such restriction will have to be imposed some time. I hope that the Minister will give this matter very urgent consideration.
I come to the vexed subject of accidents in fog on motorways. I am becoming impatient on this matter. Many people have spoken as if this was the first fog on motorways, as if this was the first pile-up of cars that we have had, and as if we were tackling the problem afresh. Nothing of the sort. There was a frightful fog early in 1964 when there was a pile-up of 200 cars on the M l. There was a row about that. There was a debate in the House about it, in which I took part. We were then told that experiments were taking place. The then Minister of Transport said that he was experimenting with all sorts of things on the M.5 and he would see what could be done. One of the bad habits of the Ministry of Transport, as well as of many other Departments, is to go on experimenting far too long. In that debate in 1962 I asked why on earth there should not be put along motorways illuminated signs of speed

limits, which could be varied by the police at any given time so that, in case of fog, according to its density there could be a speed limit of 30, 20, 10 or even five miles an hour.
All these things were taken into account, I hope, but nothing whatsoever was done. I believe that the time for experiments has passed. We can still go on experimenting to some extent, but it is time that something was put into practical operation. If one of the solutions for avoiding accidents were to be a high speed limit—say 75 miles an hour—on all roads, including motorways, I certainly would not oppose that, contrary to the opinion which has been expressed elsewhere. Such a restriction might very well save large numbers of lives. More evidence is needed on this subject. There are very few roads in the United States where people are allowed to travel at speeds in excess of 60 miles an hour. A motorist travelling a long distance at a steady 60 miles an hour arrives pretty quickly at his destination.
However, there is no point in having a 70 mile an hour speed limit in the winter, as my right hon. Friend suggested, but not in the summer. If there is a case for such a speed limit in the winter on clear days, there is a case for it in the summer.
My right hon. Friend has a pile of troubles. Whatever subject he tackles, there will be very great difficulties. He must appreciate that he will be attacked and criticised whatever he does. He will be attacked and criticised even more if he does nothing, because we can all lose our patience so easily if nothing is done. My right hon. Friend is in for a hard and difficult time. His predecessor had the advantage over him that he was very good at blowing his own trumpet, he was a master of publicity, and he was a very good gimmick merchant. My right hon. Friend has not got those qualities. He is a much more modest person. This does not mean that he is not much more sound in his outlook than his predecessor.
I warn my right hon. Friend that he will get into a lot of trouble. But he has a great opportunity to solve some of these grave social problems. I have no doubt that, given sufficient time, my right hon. Friend will seize the opportunity and initiate changes and spark off ideas which


will have a material and beneficial effect on our national life.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I hope that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will forgive me if I do not follow in the debate his most interesting speech. I want to turn the debate for a few minutes to Scotland and to technology. In the same way, I hope that the Minister of Transport will forgive me for not taking up some of his points, because whereas his heart is in Scotland his responsibility for the roads is not. That lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I should have liked to ask, had he been present, what roads in Scotland outwith development districts are being postponed under present Government policy.
I am certain that the key to Scotland is communications and transport, and that any postponement, whether of the A.74 dual carriageway from Glasgow to Carlisle or of some first-class or even second-class road, is of equal importance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he hears these words in some other place, to bear in mind that the dual carriageway to the Scottish border is of tremendous importance and that the delays which I fear are taking place cause great concern. I know that the Minister of Transport would like to help his country. If he could in any way accelerate the construction of the M.6 from Kendal to the Scottish border he would be doing a great service, because the conditions on that road are becoming intolerable. The Carlisle bypass is urgently required. I go to Carlisle regularly and I find that even the back streets of Carlisle are becoming quite impossible. We want industry and tourists to come up to Scotland but at the moment that movement is being strangled.
I am sure that the Minister of Technology knew when I rose to speak what subject I would bring up. It is the Atomic Energy Authority in Scotland, which means, of course, Dounreay and Chapelcross. Those responsible for both these stations, which are of great importance to Scotland, are crying out to know what the future holds for them. I speak particularly of Chapelcross. It is possibly one of the least known but most efficient of the atomic energy stations in

the country. It now employs about 850 people so that in a rural constituency such as mine it is a major industry. In terms of power it is carrying a load factor of about 98 per cent. Hon. Members can read all about it in the Eleventh Annual Report of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The staff are held in the highest regard. They were used in the commissioning of the Hunter-ston station and for the Tokai Mura reactor in Japan. Like all who are interested in the prototype fast reactor, they want to know when an announcement will be made about that reactor and where it will be sited.
The Minister came to the area this summer to see and to listen. I hope that he was captivated by the possibilities of Chapelcross. We now await impatiently and expectantly for this decision. The Eleventh Annual Report states on page 26 that the design, the specifications and the estimates were completed for the prototype reactor. This Report was written up to the end of March. Surely now, eight months later, the Government are in a position to tell us their intentions. I know that they had to await a report from the Atomic Energy Authority but I think that they have had ample time now to make up their minds.
On 27th July, in answer to Questions, the Minister said that the prototype fast reactor as a producer of energy for transmission to industry must be adjacent to an industrial area. Chapelcross is geographically in the centre of Great Britain with industry to the north, south, east and west of it. Surely that is a far better geographical situation than obtains at other possible sites in the south of England or at the northern tip of Scotland. It is also on the national grid and there will be no need for unsightly pylons.
I emphasise that geographical position should be a paramount factor in the making of the decision. There is also ample room on the site, ample water, ample labour, a first-class apprenticeship scheme, good housing, good schools, first-class recreational facilities, good communications and, above all, a real warm welcome awaiting the fast reactor. This has not been always so with atomic energy projects, but not in Dumfriesshire. The people there would welcome it, but there is no word about this or


other developments. There is nothing to encourage retention of existing staff—indeed there is a small but steady wastage —and nothing to encourage new staff, which we would like to see. This is creating a despondent frame of mind. There is no word of increased generating capacity, of laboratory extensions, or of a desalinisation plant. The Minister set up an advisory committee on technology in Scotland. Has this committee considered the Atomic Energy Authority within Scotland in the concept of the regional surveys?
To turn for a moment to the computer industry in Scotland, is the advisory committee considering the situation at Edinburgh University? The authorities there requested in 1964 that they should have a computer. They set up a Department and then we had the Flowers Committee appointed. This Committee should have reported in April but we heard later that it would report in June or July. When shall we have a computer at the University? The talented group of scientists there have to take a bus trip to Glasgow University to work on a computer. This seems to be a retrograde step in a technological age.
Scotland requires industrial development. We urgently desire to have the prototype fast reactor sited in Scotland or, failing that, one of the A.G.R. systems mentioned in the country's future fuel policy. I trust that I have impressed upon the Minister that Chapelcross should be the site, on every possible technical count. It is up to the Minister to tell us tonight when and where we shall hear some news about this fast reactor. Scotland is urgently awaiting his decision.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I adopt the words which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) addressed to the Minister of Transport. No matter what he does in his Department, the Minister will be subjected to an enormous amount of criticism. But I echo also the other words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, that he must face this criticism and let us have action. Let him take his decisions and let the criticism come, from whatever quarter.
It is ironic that the Opposition should have moved an Amendment in the terms

which we have heard. In face of the 13 years of neglect of all transport matters by the Tory Party, it ill becomes right hon. and hon. Members opposite to move an Amendment of this kind. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who was the chief Tory public relations man, paid for by the Government, spoke of the Beeching Report and the Buchanan Report. What did the Tory Government do about the Buchanan Report? They paid no more than lip-service to it. They paid no more than lip-service to the Jack Report on Rural Bus Services. A whole host of committees of inquiry and investigations went for nothing during the thirteen years of their Administration.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose—

Mr. Popplewell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech in due course.
It has been the same sad story in transport almost throughout all the years since the advent of the motor vehicle. We had our first Transport Act in 1930, and since that time, with one exception, the Statute Book has been littered with legislation affecting motor vehicles and transport generally, but dealing with them in a piecemeal manner. The one exception was the Transport Act of 1947, which was the first attempt to bring some sort of common sense and co-ordination into transport. It was short-lived. The advent of the Tory Government in 1951 put an end to any firm progress which could have been made with an integrated system. But even in the short time for which it was in operation, it brought transport, particularly rail transport, for the first time into solvency.
We all know the sad story of railway finances in the post-war years. Even with the small amount of co-ordination left at that time, in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, not only were all working costs and interest charges met but a profit was shown, in the first year £100,000, in the second £8 million, and in the third £400,000. From 1953 to 1964, under the Tory régime, the nation had to face a loss, not a profit, of over £1,000 million in transport. The nation should be made fully aware of this fact and should realise what hypocrisy it is, to say the least, to move an Amendment in the terms set down.
Each self-contained unit in our transport system has very little relation with the others. Little but lip-service was paid by the Tory Administration to a road programme which was to give us about 1,000 miles of motorway by the early 1970s. We are accused by the Opposition of reducing our road programme. Because of the financial difficulties in which they left the nation, we have had to make some adjustments, and they taunt us with cutting down the programme. But what were their programmes, in fact, apart from the lip-service which they paid to them? The last Minister of Transport, that wonderful propagandist, and his predecessors launched their programmes year after year. In 1954, the Minister was supposed to authorise a road programme right up to 1963, but the difference between authorisation and work completed in those nine years showed a deficiency of £239 million. Yet the Opposition now have the audacity to put down an Amendment like this.
During the same period, there were proposals put forward by county and borough surveyors for 2,700 miles of motorway to be constructed by 1983, but little or no note was taken of this, with the consequence that our present motorway system is not interlinked so as to develop its true value in meeting the industrial needs of the nation. It does not link the ports and it has no provision for adequate radial and feeder roads. The road programme of the Tory Administration did little or nothing except add to the congestion in our towns.
Instead of making a real attempt to cure some of our problems, with multistorey car parks, peripheral parking and the rest, effort was wasted on parking meters and arguments about parking meter charges. It is nonsensical that central and local government expenditure should go to the making of good wide streets if these same streets are then cluttered up with parking meters. It would have been much more sensible if a broader outlook had been taken. Multistorey car parks ought to have been developed, the Government themselves taking some responsibility for meeting excessive land charges in the places where such car parks would have to be sited so that the garaging fees could be reasonable. In this way, the motorist could

have kept his vehicle off the streets instead of adding to the congestion. All of us are guilty in this. There has been particular reference to London, but street congestion is a great problem in our Provincial towns and cities as well. The whole story shows the complete lack of vision of the past Tory Administration.
Inevitably, my right hon. Friend's task will be difficult. There have been more committees of inquiry and investigations into transport than into any other subject. But the time has now come when we can no longer afford to wait for further investigations. Sufficient knowledge is available. As in any enterprise, the time has come when present and future developments dictate that a decision must be taken. My right hon. Friend's decision will be a political one, and, in making it, he must ensure the carrying out of the reference in the Queen's Speech to the further co-ordination of inland transport. The longer the present policy is continued, with the closing of branch railway lines, passenger and goods stations and workshops, the more difficult it will be to co-ordinate.
An article in yesterday's Guardian referred to the fact that a decision to stop further closures should have been made two years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the heavy capital expenditure undertaken by the Railways Board in modernising many workshops. But the ironical fact is that once these costly schemes have been carried out, many workshops have been sold off to private enterprise while the antiquated workshops have been retained. After incurring great expenditure in modernising many workshops, the Board had to hive them off to private enterprise on the instructions of the Tory Government, carrying out the 1962 Act.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is allowing this to continue. We welcomed his observation last March when he said that he would encourage the railway workshops to embark on a more ambitious programme. But that depends on legislation which is not yet forthcoming. Consequently, instead of expansion we have chapter and verse of cases where the workshops are not being allowed even to produce their own requirements.
This is a very serious matter. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is entirely responsible. It is the responsibility of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet should give instructions to stop any further rail closures pending a co-ordination scheme. I do not say that more branch lines will not have to be closed—probably they will —but certainly, pending the co-ordination of transport, they should be halted. You, Mr. Speaker, are now a non-political man, but you are still a right hon. Member of this House, and I remind you that the cross-Channel car ferry from Southampton has been handed over to a Norwegian firm. There are other examples of the same sort of thing. At Eastleigh, modern workshops are being handed over to private enterprise while antiquated works on the other side of the track are being detained.
It is claimed that, in this way, costs are being reduced. That is nonsense. Despite the closures the deficit has been continually increasing year by year. Lord Beeching said last year that he had reduced the deficit by £20 million. However, I believe that the deficit will have mounted again this year and that at the moment it is running at about £140 million instead of £120 million.
A new vitality must be instilled into the Railways Board. Instead of following a defeatist closure policy, it must go into the attack to attract traffic. It is now concentrating on city-to-city lines and on the so-called liner trains—which are nothing new although a lot of hullabaloo has been raised about them. It is popular on the benches opposite to talk about the opposition of the N.U.R. to liner trains, but the liner train running last week did so with the full co-operation of the N.U.R. because it was loaded by railwaymen who are used to a collection and delivery service, which they ran even under private enterprise. There is no difficulty about liner trains.
The truth is that, in running down the railways collection and delivery service, hon. Members opposite want this lucrative work hived off to private enterprise hauliers which, in the end, would mean not only a deleterious effect on the railways but putting many long-distance lorry drivers out of business as well. The private enterprise hauliers would be able to cash in on the large expenditure of

the Railways Board on terminal equipment and telecommunications in programming and development.
The hiving off of lucrative projects is causing great dismay. We look to the Government to reconsider the situation and to prepare a scheme for co-ordination, allowing the railway workshops and other public undertakings to develop. In the meantime, they should stop further closures. The amount saved by these closures is infinitesimal when compared with the global deficit and turnover. The railways want a revenue of £478 million to £490 million and the maximum saving by closures has been about £20 million. One must compare this with a deficit of over £1,000 million. The question of closures is not merely one of the money saved on a particular branch line. Transport is a service as distinct from a normal commercial undertaking. The House should adjust itself to look on transport as a service. Once we get that idea in our minds there will be some hope.
One cannot regulate any given commodity to any particular form of transport, for so many different criteria are required by producer and consumer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look-further at co-ordination, at pricing and at scheduled services among other things. If he does, he will perform a useful service and we could look forward to a scheme of co-ordination.
I wish him well in his task. Sometimes I have subjected him to tremendous criticism but he will understand that it is not personal. We pledged ourselves to a co-ordinated integrated transport system and we must honour that pledge. The difficulties faced by the Government in the first months in office in clearing up the mess left by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made it difficult to carry out that pledge but now it seems that we are turning the corner and so we look forward to a co-ordination scheme from my right hon. Friend.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Harvey: We have just listened to a remarkably conservative speech—conservative with a small "c"—against change, against innovation and against progress—in favour of doing things as they have been done for years.
I am sorry that the Minister is about to leave, because I was about to say that he cannot get away with the suggestion that the cuts he has been forced to make —temporary as he hopes they are—are in some way to be attributed to our policies while in office. It was Goebbels who developed the technique of the big lie— keep on hammering it home so that in the end people come to believe it. I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne West (Mr. Popple-well) was a propagandist in the cause of the big lie or whether he has fallen victim to his own propaganda when he spoke about 13 years of neglect.
When one hears the claim that the difficulties of the Government are attributable to their inheritance from the last Government, it is important to remember that in the election campaign right hon. Gentlemen opposite were at one and the same time talking about a financial crisis and all the things they would do in office. They said none of these things would involve any increase in taxation. It is against that background that we are entitled after a year to ask what progress is being made.
The only progress one sees is, by and large, paper progress. There are masses of paper plans for houses, schools, hospitals and roads—and the nation's transport users have a "paper tiger in the tank". This will not do. It is largely to the question of transport and in an effort to make a constructive contribution that I make my intervention.
The right hon. Gentleman hinted that some restrictions on the use of private cars in our big cities may be on the way. If they are, it is important that he should make up his mind as quickly as possible on the type of restrictions he proposes to put before Parliament. These things can greatly affect car production, apart from anything else, and in doing so our capacity to sell abroad. We need clarification of this as soon as possible.
While one can understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about traffic difficulties in our big cities, let him not delude himself into believing that if he can stop cars coming in he will get more people on to public transport. I assure the Minister that if he cares to go to my constituency of Walthamstow or the neighbouring constituency of Wanstead

and Woodford, where I live, to see for himself what public transport is like at the morning and evening peak hours, he will understand that if he makes it more difficult for people to use the roads he will add immensely to the difficulties of public transportation. It is not enough to think of buses in the central area as though a city such as London revolves only around the central area. London depends on the arteries by which it is fed.
The Minister should go and look at Tokyo. His predecessor is there at the moment studying automation and all the improvements which are being made in road and rail transport in that go-ahead city. In Tokyo he would see the remarkable things which have been done in a space of three or four years to take arteries into and through a big city. These are the lines along which we must think in solving some of our own road transport problems.
I sympathise to a degree with the Minister of Transport, as I would sympathise with any Minister of Transport. For years I sat behind my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) listening to the criticism and taunts which were hurled at him, despite all the things which he tried to do. There was criticism despite all the legacy of a sound foundation which he has left for those who succeed him. A Minister of Transport performs a thankless job, faced with the greatest difficulty, and it is therefore vital that every bit of new thinking possible should be done by the Minister in charge of this Department.
Among the new thinking which must command attention is the possibility of building toll roads in Britain. It is all very well to speak, as did the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)— and the Minister himself hinted at it— about the possibility of further charges on the motorist for the privilege of owning and driving his motor car. There must be very few members of the community who in one way or another contribute more to the total volume of taxation than the motorist already does, and if the motorist is to be further taxed he will rightly ask what he is to get in return.
The Minister should not only visit Tokyo to see what they have been able to do to improve communications from outside the city, which is now the greatest


in the world, into the heart of the city. He should also visit Italy at an early date and look, as I was privileged to look this summer, at the Autostrade del Sol, which runs all the way from the Swiss frontier down to Naples—a magnificent piece of engineering. It is relevant for a Scottish Minister of Transport and for everyone interested in the welfare of Scotland to consider the astonishing effect which that motorway has had on Italy.
Not only has it provided the most efficient and modern means of road communication in Europe, but it has opened up and placed completely new values on a depopulated part of Italy which people had written off as useless. It is bringing back new life to what I suppose one might call the Italian Highlands. It would be no bad thing if the Minister seized the opportunity of his office to make his No. 1 target a motor road from Dover to Inverness, modelled on the Autostrade del Sol. It could be a toll road, and we should pay for the pleasure of using it. If hon. Members shake their heads at the idea of a toll road and if they remain convinced that unless we can have it free we do not want it, then none of these improvements will ever be industry?

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Earlier in his speech the hon. Member complained that the motorist was taxed far too heavily now. One of his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench agreed with that comment. May I suggest that to tax the motorist further for the use of roads for which he pays very heavily already would be anti-social, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of fair play to the motoring industry.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member could not have been listening to the Minister of Transport and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall who suggested further imposts on the motorist for no tangible benefits at all. I am sure that the motorist will resent paying more for nothing, but he will not mind it nearly so much if he is asked to pay more but is to get positive benefits from it in new roads.
Consider what this road has done to Italy and what it could do to Britain. It could be part of the answer to the

depopulation of the Highlands. This is a way in which we could hope to bring new industry to vast areas which at the moment are considered useless, which are being written off and from which people are moving away. This could be an answer to the depopulation of the Highlands and to the far too great a population in so many of our cities in the South. Unless we are prepared to think imaginatively and to raise money in such a way as this in order to get things done, we shall face a situation in which, all the time, far too little road construction is facing far too many cars and no Minister of Transport will ever be rated a success in his office.
I urge with all the force that I can command that we should think again in this country about the great advantages of toll roads, not just as a means of communication but as a major social service to the whole of the hinterland, which could be opened up through the use of such roads. If the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) still has any doubts about it, let him go with the Minister to Italy to see the cars and lorries which are paying to use these roads and which obviously find that it pays them to pay for these roads, because the journeys are completed much more quickly and the saving in wear and tear and time is considerable.
It is all very well talking about new ways of making the railways more efficient, desirable though this may be. We are in the motor age. We are in an age in which it is much more efficient to move goods for export into the docks by road. They can be moved much more quickly that way and they catch ships with a much greater degree of certainty and with much less delay if one is moving them in one's own lorry into the docks. People who are asked to make more use of the railways will need a lot of convincing that the railways can handle goods expeditiously, will not lose them and will get them where they are wanted on time.
We must face the fact that in a country which is moving forward, roads will matter more and more, and the present rate of road building is not merely high enough. The rate of road building envisaged by my colleagues when we were in office was not nearly high enough. The limiting factor, of course, is money, and


the Minister's difficulty is with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister will be able to overcome this difficulty only if he can say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Given toll roads we can finance much of this for ourselves." One of my hon. Friends suggested that there should be tolls around the cities to stop cars from coming into the cities. How much more important it is that we should have tolls in the countryside to encourage cars on to efficient roads which, as I have said, can open up and revitalise vast areas of the country.
Bearing in mind that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I will confine my remarks to that one subject. I hope that what I have said will make the Government, the Minister and his Department think again about what I believe to be one of the major means of breaking through the difficulties which exist in getting the volume of road construction which this country needs.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I have heard most of the debate this afternoon and this evening, and it seems to me that most of the speeches from right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been purely tactical in content and not devoted to any serious appraisal of the transport requirements of the country for the next decade. I was horrified that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was so startlingly complacent and even cynical on the issue of road casualties. In the speech of the Opposition spokesman there was no word to ask whether the driver had eyes, no word about the behavioural attitude of the driver. The whole emphasis was on means and methods. There was no encouragement to the enforcement forces of this country, though it is obvious that a stricter enforcement of the existing law is clearly overdue.
Much of the Minister's statement was a vigorous but defensive attitude to the tactical approach by hon. Members opposite. He reminded us that he wants facts before policy. He wants to identify the problems before the proposals, and he said that he will perhaps let us know something of his thinking by the end of 1965. He touched on the co-ordination of the parcels service, and I await the details. If this is an indication of his thinking, I want to hear much more of it.
But it is on transport policy that I want to concentrate. As I had feared, the Gracious Speech fails to indicate legislative action on inland transport. It would be wrong of me not frankly to indicate my disappointment that during the next 12 months we are not to have legislation in this field, although I accept that proposals will be forthcoming. Many in the country and many of my hon. Friends want this year a transport policy and a development plan backed by legislation which will be adequate for the next decade. That being so, some of us, I am afraid, must become more vocal and indeed more insistent in expressing that need in this House, to the Government and to the country. I say this after very careful reflection on the progress which has been made in the last 12 months. I was reflecting a few moments ago on the fact that it appeared possible for the 1945 Labour Government to evolve out of the maelstrom of war, with the few facts then available, the major Transport Act, of 1947, revitalising and reorganising the whole structure of transport in the country. This took less than it will apparently take the present Government when the Ministry of Transport is full of facts and theories and has so much data available. I say that with some disappointment.
Over the last 10 years, we have witnessed an intense growth of the private sector of transport. Without much regard to road space or traffic problems, cars have rolled off the assembly line, aided by hire purchase, very efficient salesmanship and a very powerful lobby in the House of Commons, with many friends among hon. Members opposite and so many friends in Government until a few months ago. We have now reached the stage when, by sheer volume, the car is strangling its own usefulness in the towns and, by sheer misuse, maiming more and more people every day. Moreover, endless lines of vehicles in the towns and villages make crossing the highway a dangerous hazard for young and old, and even a risky operation for those of us who are a little more nimble. We have open war between personal movement on the highway and the mobile, armoured internal combustion engine. The machine is now out of hand. It harasses our walking lives and conditions all our movement needs.
In this constant conflict in which legal discipline is playing a smaller and smaller part, it is beyond doubt that pedestrians are subsidising nearly every form of vehicle user on the roads, rail, or in the air. Yet we are unable to get any authoritative statement from the Ministry about the basic problems of the costings of those three and the fourth, water transport.
I was encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend say that there was now an economist in the Ministry. He said that as though it were a great event in the year 1965. It is clearly a condemnation of the years which have gone. But I register a slight regret that this need was not appreciated at least 12 months ago.
Social benefit studies are required. What was done by hon. Members opposite about social benefit studies, apart from the one isolated incident when, with London Transport facing the problem of trying to get another London underground line against the claims of private enterprise in this great city, the then Minister was driven into a social benefit study?
But if we are to have such studies, they should not be confined to the roads. Whatever justification for social studies there may be in respect of the M.1, the M.6, or any other motorway, I urge hon. Members opposite to come out of their dogma and consider having social benefit studies of the situation which would arise from electrifying the public transport system and developing the public sector of the road system.
A quick analysis of the problem would fall under three headings. First, we must find the answer to the problem of equity and discipline among existing transport users and transport providers. Secondly, we must consider the problem of more transport space, roads and railways in London, underground or not, and we must make such a study factually, not in the emotive words of the Road Federation—" We want more motorways "— leading from an argument of fact to an argument of emotion. Thirdly, we have to resolve the struggle among road, rail, air and waterway interests and ultimately consider whether public investment is efficiently used and equitably shared.
I intervened in the notable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) when I pointed to the absolutely basic need, before any of us in any party, including my own, began dictating or making suggestions about this or that form of transport, to make an examination of basic costs in order to have a pragmatic approach to the problem. If any of those basic costings revealed subventions from the public purse, that would be bound to force one to conclusions about that form of transport.
I read the Government's paper on costings data in their recommendation to the Geddes Committee—a recommendation from which I differ—and I also have reservations about Dr. Beeching's data. I see that other transport interests also have different estimates of road costings. Have we reached a time when all the experts disagree, or is it that dogma prevails even among the experts?
I find it inconceivable that we must continue to dilly and dally waiting for more reports when all around us the road law is being flouted by drink, by speed and the use of unfit vehicles. How many more reports do we want when it is clear that enforcement of the law must be strengthened? In a few weeks I shall be able to make a speech here saying that it is a waste of time to strengthen the law when enforcement of the present law is so feeble. The existing law must be enforced. I give my right hon. Friend's predecessor credit in that he was vigorous about this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will act with even greater courage to ensure quicker legislation and, about all, enforcement.
After long thought and some experience of the courts, I believe that the time is now overdue for operating a quite separate traffic policy system and separate traffic offences courts. Do not let history hang on us that we could not deal with the new problems. Both the changes I have mentioned are overdue and I hope that the Minister's mind is not closed to them. I am prepared to go even further and, although this may be a startling suggestion to hon. Members, I believe that the time is now imminent when the record of every motorist which is held by his insurance company should be available to the police and the courts, so that the pedigree of the motoring


career of any erring motorist can be used as some criterion to decide whether he is a suitable person to drive a vehicle on the roads.
I turn now to the subject of equity among existing road users. The fiscal and operating facts and costs are now becoming clear. Despite the inclusion of petrol tax in their costs, it is now clear that commercial road users are heavily subsidised by other vehicle users, perhaps mainly those using personal transport. It seems that the Government's homework has been done and it is to be hoped that some time in the spring we shall see the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his proposals for making more equitable the basic fiscal conditions in which each form of road transport operates. I was delighted and charmed to find that in one edition of The Guardian of 10th November—it seems to have been left out of some other editions —there was what appeared to be an official hand-out on this point. Under the heading of "Transport" it said:
The Government's proposals of co-ordinated transport are expected before the end of the tax year.
My ears pricked up when I read that and I hoped that I was able to read into this the kind of thoughts which other people are putting into words on this point.
If, as is inevitable, public transport will require areas of subsidy, these subsidies, even for railways, should be geared to criteria. I was a railway man and I say, without complaint, that the open-ended nature of the subsidy to railways is dangerous. That should be geared to criteria also. If the Minister would gear it to a criterion of track costs and policing he would be paying out much the same global amount but he would be gearing it to an engineer's criterion of a measured cost. This would enable the Minister, when he is dealing with the problems of branch closures, to be able to say "What is the effect in this branch line?". If the Minister has given subsidies to the line and its customers still fail, in the face of operating costs, to make ends meet, then there would appear to be a powerful argument that the line is not wanted. At the moment the Minister is using a criterion which is known only to himself. Little is known of it outside.
The second problem is that of more transport space and better use of existing space to meet the increasing need for personal transport. Heavy capital expenditure is involved, and, providing the priority is right, I see no reason at all why new road construction and major road improvements should not be initially financed in the same way, on the basis of loan and interest, as we finance water, education and even railway capital investment programmes. It need not necessarily be "above"the line" in a budgetary sense, and one would hope that the Minister would not have a closed mind on this question.
The amount of transport space which is required is linked with the problem of the transport policy as a whole. It is here that the Government's approach is, to say the least, very inadequate. The failure to outline a national policy in their second year of office will be noticed more and more in the country and not least by Members on this side of the House. I say, gently but firmly, to the Front Bench, that we must pursue the Government vigorously for that policy and get them to spell out what integration means. I have often said that the word "integration" has become a slogan. It is time that the slogan was translated into terms of practical politics and a practical policy. My plea to this House, and to my Front Bench, is that there are enough facts for the main lines of policy to be drawn out. I am prepared to accept from the Minister that his party and mine gave him very little practical advice when he came into office. I am prepared to accept that the preceding Minister had pigeon-holes full of advice. But we have had 12 months when the facts have been there. Some of us—and I am one of them—have tried to give ideas to the Minister.
The Trades Union Congress has issued an agreed policy for transport. In principle and in substance it is going the way ordinary people want transport to go, but I beg the Minister to get away from the paper problem, to the policy problem. I ask him to give heed to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), urging the Government to listen to the anxieties in the country over the problem of transport for the family. The public is looking for


a solution. It is prepared for a national solution but it is not prepared to tolerate vested interests from either side of the House. The Minister can and must look for the solution, and during the next few weeks he ought to be able to find it.
If he can come before the House by the end of this year and give it the kind of policy that will fit the nation for the next 10 years, then I believe that, upstairs or on the Floor of this House, we could write the legislation evolving out of that policy, and could let it become available and operative during the next 12 or 18 months.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to be as brief as possible, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I will not comment on the speech which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has made. He has introduced one or two new ideas and some ideas which are old and which various Ministers of Transport have rejected in recent years. Much of his speech exhibited that conservatism, with a small "c", of which one of my hon. Friends complained and was going back to Labour policies which have been current for very many years. Nor will I make any attempt to fill in the policy, with which the Minister of Transport complained we did not supply him, because the object of our Amendment was to complain that he was not explaining what his policy was. I merely wish to make one point about the difference between the wording of the Gracious Speech and the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at Swansea on 25th January, 1964.
The Gracious Speech says:
My Ministers will bring forward proposals for the more effective co-ordination of inland transport.
The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in January, 1964, said:
We have demanded an integrated transport plan, co-ordination between road and rail and the allocation of traffic between them.
In other words, the Prime Minister was demanding an integrated transport plan and the allocation of traffic. In the Gracious Speech all that is asked for is more effective co-ordination which, according to the speech made by the Minister of Transport, refers to such mat-

ters as the parcel delivery service, and the buses meeting the trains and quite small matters of that sort. It seems that in the last few months the responsibilities of office have caused the Government to adopt a more cautious and moderate line. I hope that that is true, but I am not sure that it is because the words "co-ordination" and "integration" have been bandied about so much that they have lost all their meaning, and like the words of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking Glass", they have been twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.
As I pointed out many times in the House, I was concerned, in a very junior capacity, with the railways' "square deal" propaganda campaign before the war. I believe that many of the ideas about transport which still haunt politics originated in that campaign and were slogans invented by publicity agents for the purpose of furthering private enterprise railways. The Minister repeated what I know to be a publicity agent's slogan. He talked about "wasteful competition". That was an expression paid for by the railway companies as a means of discrediting their rivals, and it is still current.
The basic idea of that propaganda campaign was that there were more transport facilities available than were needed, and that since the railways were underused all forms of transport should be integrated and the traffic allocated to one or other form of transport. I had very grave doubts about that policy at the time. I doubted whether the basic assumption was true, namely, that there was too much transport. It certainly is not true today. There has been a great increase in the volume of traffic carried, and the proportion carried by the railways has gone down. Eighty per cent. of the tonnage carried and 55 per cent. of the ton mileage now goes by road. The railways are still under-used. The principal reason is not a switch from rail to road; it is that the growth industries have been those industries which find it more convenient to use the roads.
For instance, between 1952 and 1962 there was an increase of between 30 and 40 per cent. in industries concerned with food and drink, tobacco and construction. Those are all industries which find it convenient to use road transport. On the


other hand, the coal industry declined 10 per cent. If one could isolate the domestic coal trade from the commercial users of coal, one would find that the percentage of decrease must be very much more. The increase in the steel industry was only 13 per cent. There are many other examples. There is a tendency for factories and trading estates to have their layout arranged with a view to using road transport, not rail transport. It is almost impossible in many cases to make a rail connection. In those circumstances, we cannot get the traffic back on the railways by allocation.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) advocated forcing the transport back on the railways by making it too expensive to go by road. The only result of that in many instances would be to force up the price of the goods produced and probably to force them out of the export market because they could not go by rail in many cases. The obvious answer is for the railways to make the best use of their own advantages and to cut redundant services in the manner suggested by Dr. Beeching. If we are to talk about being modern in a modern age, we must make the best use of the existing facilities and of future facilities. In certain cases it is still better to use the railways than the roads, but we should not obstruct the railways in doing the things which they can do well.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) spoke about liner trains. It is absurd that raliwaymen should object to road hauliers using the liner trains. It is the best hope which railwaymen have of getting some of the traffic back from the road hauliers, apart from prohibiting hauliers altogether. The advantage of liner trains to the long distance haulier is that he can use the railways at the terminals and do only short haul work and put the long haul work on the railways. He can then keep his lorry at home and not have to send his driver away for a night, thus incurring expense and possible losses due to not having the lorry under his own observation.
The idea of liner trains is attractive for the long distance road haulier provided that he can use them. But if the railwaymen insist that he should not use

them and that they can be used only by cartage and delivery men employed by British Railways, a great deal of the usefulness of the service disappears. I hope that that attitude will not be persisted in.
A mistake was made—and not by a Labour Government, but by a Conservative Government—in the Transport Act, 1962, Section 53 of which has had some surprising results. That Section dealt with shipping interests which could complain to the Minister of Transport that if the railways made a charge for the carriage of goods by rail which was inadequate to cover the full cost of affording the service, the Minister could make a general direction that such charges should not be made. This protected coastal shipping. The idea was that it was unfair for a nationalised industry which was making a loss to be subsidised by the taxpayer and to undercut coastal shipping by charging less than the full cost of affording the service, including the due proportion of the central charges. I served on the Committee which agreed to that provision at the instigation of Members representing the North East Coast on the ground that it would help coastal shipping.
However, the Section is having unfortunate and unexpected results in the West Country because the old Great Western Railway was never at any time able to maintain itself by its passenger services. Unlike the Southern Railway, it always depended on its goods traffic to keep it going, but now the domestic coal trade is very much smaller. As a result, there has been a diminution in its earnings. There is, therefore, a surplus of capacity in the Western Region and there are trucks available which could be filled with traffic if a cheap enough charge were made. The railways are prevented from offering a smaller charge, particularly for coal traffic and china clay traffic, because of Section 53 of the 1962 Act.
In 1964, 750,000 tons of china clay were carried from Devon and Cornwall to destinations in the rest of the United Kingdom: 327,000 tons, about 40 per cent., went by sea; 237,000 tons, about 30 per cent., went by road; and 235,000 tons, again about 30 per cent., went by rail. In that year, 850,000 tons of coal went into Devon and Cornwall by sea;


500,000 tons by rail; and 150,000 tons by road. The absurd thing about these figures is the large proportion carried by road.
We in the West Country, particularly in Cornwall, are not very well served with roads. In Cornwall, the only roads we have leading "up country" are the A30 and the A38, both of which are poor and subject to traffic jams. It is impossible to increase the goods traffic on those roads. People always choose one form of traffic rather than another, for one or other or a combination of two reasons—either the form of transport they use is cheaper than another form or it is more convenient. With the rather indifferent roads which there are in Cornwall, it is clear that the reason why such a large proportion of coal and china clay is carried by road cannot possibly be convenience. It must be cheapness.
Therefore, it would be a good thing if the railways were allowed to charge cheaper prices, and they would then probably get back a proportion of that traffic. I do not suggest that there should be any restriction on road traffic, but that the railways should be allowed to charge an attractive price. They would be willing to do it but for this Section which is benefiting road haulage rather than shipping.
It is important to us in the West that this should happen, because the line from Plymouth to Penzance is deemed to be a "grey" line, that is to say, it is one which is not capable of earning enough to justify capital expenditure on improvements. It is a line which could easily be improved. It was built on the cheap in the early days and there are many curves in the line which could be improved with very little expenditure and which would improve the service for passengers as well as goods.
But we are not likely to see that higher proportion of capital spent on this fine, unless we can improve the goods traffic. We could do that both for china clay and coal if the charges could be adjusted in a proper manner. I hope that this matter will be looked into.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I always listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and I am particularly interested in his remarks about the use of road instead of

rail traffic for certain purposes. I regret that I have to agree with him to a great extent in this regard because I have noticed, with my intimate knowledge of the whole Merseyside docks system, that we are using road transport to the detriment of rail transport. Whether this is the best answer or is purely for the benefit of people who have the facilities for loading the ships as quickly as they can, it is the case. But whether it will be the case in the future is a matter for inquiry and for the adjudication of experts such as I acknowledge the hon. Member for Truro to be.
Many things have been said today, on which I want to comment. When I first came into the House, the late Aneurin Bevan, on hearing a remark on something which went back to my boyhood and which I thought was an inequality in industry, told me, "You must always remember that history started when the Labour Government came in in 1945." The date has now been altered and, from the comments today, it appears that history started only in 1964.
I would say to the Front Bench speakers whom I have heard today that whatever has been said about the dreadful situation in London and the terriffic and horrible carnage on the roads, as one who is very much a provincial Member —for the County Borough of Bootle—I believe that, unless the Government had carried out a great deal of decentralisation, we should never have attracted the Giro Bank, a wonderful achievement for us, or new office blocks.
I must acknowledge to the party opposite that when they were in power they listened to my voice when I told them of the difficulties experienced by young girls leaving our colleges and grammar schools in finding adequate and dignified work. Therefore, I acknowledge that decentralisation from London has at least meant more dignity for many people in the provinces.
I hope that this practice goes on. Whatever is said, it must inevitably solve the traffic problem if Government offices are spread all over the country. The main thing for any party to remember is that there are people in other parts of the world and other parts of the country who need many of the privileges and cultural activities which have for too long been the asset of this part of the country alone.
I should like to turn to the subject about which hon. Members know that I would speak in a transport debate, and which is important in Liverpool. I am the only hon. Member from Liverpool who has spoken today and I hope, therefore, that I can do our problems justice. We have many problems. Recently, at a meeting of the Transport Institute in Liverpool, Mr. C. A. Dove, the Director-General of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, said:
Time presses; it may be later than we think.
The port industry needed firm information as soon as possible on ship design and methods of packing and dispatching cargo. The Merseyside section of the Institute of Transport adhere to this.
He made a very important point when he said that it takes longer to build or alter a port than to build a ship or a container depot. He went on:
The port industry is on the threshold of revolutionary changes in many directions "—
I would support him in that, especially in respect of the revolutionary changes which are coming in labour—
not least in the acceleration of the movement of cargo through the ports and to and from them by land and sea.
He pointed out that his visit to America impelled him to the view that they are over the threshold, and that time is very short.
We already know that the accent in our ports is on a quick turn-round in ships, and it is of this that I am thinking. There is one other point which was made at this meeting which I hope will not enter into today's debate. We have often felt in the north of England—I do not say that I have participated in this opinion all the time and to a great degree, but it is nevertheless an opinion held there—that there is no place in this island for rivalry between the North and the South.
I do not wish it to be thought that I am pressing the view of Liverpool against the national interest. I say what I do because I believe that this is the biggest exporting port in the country. Therefore, I believe that I am speaking in the national interest when I speak about Merseyside and the Port of Liverpool.
I do not want to criticise the Front Bench or the previous Minister. The Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board has spent £54 million since 1945 on modernising conditions, and this has brought an improvement in recent years. We have a tremendous entrance which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen, the Langton-Canada improvement scheme which has given us seven new berths, and we have the Tranmere oil jetties which can take 90,000-ton tankers and which are bringing 10 million tons of oil per annum into the port.
These things have been achieved. We are asked to make a more intensive use of existing berths. That is being done by financial inducement to traders to clear the quays quickly and by penal rents for unduluy long periods of storage. We are asking for £5 million to be spent on other berths and for the modernisation of the berths to be kept to a limit in order that it shall not take too long, because in every year that a berth is out of action we lose 150,000 tons of cargo from that one berth.
I want to say something which may encourage the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology who, quite apart from his present appointment, has a lifelong association with the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I have been a member for 34 years. The dry cargo handled by the Mersey Docks in 1964 was 84 per cent. higher than it was in 1950, and the expectation is that by 1980 the dry cargo handled will be 100 per cent. over 1960, which means that in 20 years we will have doubled the output of that great port.
Of the whole of our 210 berths, we have only 22 which are deep-water berths. That is a very serious matter in these days of larger ships, and there are more deep-water berths in Antwerp than there are in the whole of the United Kingdom ports.
I will not go on with that report to any great degree, because I do not want to weary the House with too many details. It is quite obvious that we have to have a radical improvement on Merseyside in the facilities for exporting. Prompt deliveries of cargoes from this country are essential to our prestige and to our economy, and we are anxious to get rid of any bad old habits that once prevailed in the Port of Liverpool.
One point that exercises my mind is that there is a plan for a new dock. I have a copy of it before me, and the existing plan is for £65 million worth of work. At the moment, we are only going ahead with £35 million worth, on the first leg. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that so many docks in our country are old, whether that is the right attitude to adopt in these days of challenge from abroad. The plan is also asking for £5 million to be spent on old systems.
I speak as a man who has worked in the docks in one capacity or another for the whole of his life. I make no claim to have always been a labourer. I was able to occupy other positions which gave me a balanced view of what I believed and what others believed was necessary for the progress of our country in terms of sea transportation. There are seven miles of existing docks in Liverpool, in one straight line. They are older dock systems, but they are still useful and they need to be modernised. Ship repair facilities are needed, and we must remember that our new ships are not necessarily going to be of massive tonnages. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro, there is a great coast trade, and there is other trade in the Port of Liverpool involving ships of 9,000, 10,000 and 11,000 tons. These berths are very valuable.
There is yet another and more important reason, to which I hope the House will listen with some generosity. The working conditions and social conditions, if I can call them such, of dockers working in those parts are completely archaic. They would not be tolerated in any other modern industry. It is time that there was a change, and I am not merely asking for a change but demanding a change, in the interests of dockers, ship workers, boilermakers and everyone else. If we do not make a change, we are going to be short of men.
In only a decade, from 20,000 dockers we have made a reduction down to 12,000. People say that we will not cooperate and that we do not co-operate. But we have co-operated, and we have reduced manpower in the Port of Liverpool from 20,000 to 12,000 with more efficiency. The men are accepting new machinery and new techniques. But it

is no good having new roads to bring goods to the port unless the cargoes can be got on board ship and away to sea in the most expeditious fashion.
There are restrictive practices, and one of them I will admit quite openly. There is a restrictive practice on Merseyside which some of us abhor to a degree. It is a thing called the "welt". Hon. Members will see that it is mentioned in the Devlin Report. It has its place in the industrial history of Liverpool.
When men were working dirty cargoes in a bad atmosphere, for the sake of their health they could not afford to stay down in a hold for more than one hour. They went down for an hour and then came up for an hour, working turn and turn about on an hourly shift. When the war came, the Port of Liverpool was badly bombed. My own town in particular had the greatest devastation of any town in England. The families of the men were asked to move out of the town, but the men remained, living in canteens, doss houses and anywhere they could. The late Ernest Bevin appealed to them to keep the gateway to the Western Ocean open because, without that gateway, the country would fall. The welt helped to save the nation then, because men worked day and night, hour and hour about or four hours and four hours about, sleeping as and when they could.
That is a historical fact, and when people talk about restrictive practices they should try to get them into perspective. In modern times on normal cargoes, the welt cannot be kept for very much longer. Every reasonable docker on Merseyside and in the country knows that it is time there was a change.
Having tried to put it into personal perspective to help hon. Members, I hope that when people make adjudications on it, they will bear in mind the tremendous record that our dockers have established in unloading cargoes in peace and in war, even taking into account the restrictive practices which are there.
However, they are not the only restrictive practices. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would be surprised to know that there are thousands of men working on Merseyside for employers who have never owned so much as a truck. They have a telephone and an office. They are equally a restrictive practice in the


port and belong to the days of long ago. They have no part in the working of a modern port. Indeed, the position has been recognised to such a degree that the Liverpool Dock employers have agreed voluntarily to a reduction from over 100 employers to precisely 14.
We have had trade union difficulty in Merseyside. I want to know why we could not have one employer. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have just entered into the field and, if they do everything in their usual first-class fashion, I cannot see why we should not have one employer, if not now, in the years ahead. We could plan towards that end. We should also have one trade union on Merseyside. The multiplicity of trade unions or the duplication of the working of certain aspects is causing a lot of trouble. We have at the moment two sets of workers, the organised and the unorganised, and the organised are organised into two trade unions. That is not beneficial to the port, and these things should be said openly and honestly.
As I have said, one of the most important things is to get cargo to the ships by the best possible roads, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not bring to notice certain facts, although the Ministry must be aware of them. Probably the biggest single dock system in this country is the Gladstone Dock. The roadway out of that dock system is no more than 25 feet wide, and it is causing tremendous blockages of transport. The solution is to widen the bridge at Sea-forth, where this new massive dock is to go—that must be done extremely quickly —and that road must be widened. There is nothing in that road to stop the work.
I further ask the Minister: when, in God's name, are we going to get completed the new Southport road which will ease the whole strain on this system for people coming into Liverpool from Southport 25 miles away? For 40 years we have been asking for the completion of this road. Could not the Minister of Transport give a little more consideration to this matter? The road is already about half completed. Or perhaps he could give us a little more capital to help us get nearer completion in order to ease the very grave problem of access to the Liverpool Docks. It is the queueing of lorries and the organisation of ships

that is holding back the expeditious use of the new techniques we have.
I have already said, but I want to re-emphasise it, that it will be difficult to get the right sort of labour in the dock industry. I have no doubt that this will be the position in all our major ports. I live and work among the dockers in my constituency, and I know that their boys are not going to the docks. We have given better housing facilities but, in doing so, we have given them a better glimpse of the stars. Their boys are now going to grammar schools, technical schools and universities, and they will not go down to the docks unless there is a great improvement in the wages, conditions and hours down there. The members of the new generation have no intention of putting up with what their fathers put up with.
Trade unions and people's right to strike have been criticised in recent days. Only the other day the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed to a lot of the difficulties there are in the trade union movement, but he must have known that on that very day at a meeting in York people were working to get rid of restrictive practices, and had, in fact, succeeded in making arrangements to get rid of them. A great deal has been done already. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the boiler-makers, and particularly the boilermakers at Cammell Lairds, he must have known that none of us applaud their sort of action. The right hon. Gentleman must know that Sir Thomas Yates was given a very arduous and difficult job. He succeeded, after six months of negotiations, in producing an amalgamation of the two unions concerned.
If we are to be honest about what we want in the future, and if we want cooperation and co-ordination, let us tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, instead of trying to score mean little points off each other. I am not interested in the past; there has only been war and trouble and upset in the past. I belong to a town that is proud of its motto—" Respice, aspice, prospice " —"Look to the past, consider the present, plan for the future ". We know the past and the present, and we look to the future. Let us get the acrimony out of the docks, in particular, and let people


cease from making these little points, as they do.
I was not brought up in the Marxist school. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) may be an extreme Right-winger, and regarded as one by his friends and colleagues, but as he pointed to where I sat, and spoke about departing from Marxism, I must say that I was not brought up in that way but in the Catholic Social Guild. The documents that form the basis of my views and the views of a lot of people in Merseyside and throughout the country are documents like "Rerum Novarum ","Divini Remptoris ","Quadragesimo Anno","Mater ete Magistra", and Papal Encyclicals. Let hon. Members read those documents. Their authors make Marx sound like an enthusiastic amateur. I therefore take objection to people who do not know the industrial set-up—and certainly do not know my set-up—challenging me in that fashion. I made up my mind to say that, lest there should be any dubiety about it.
A very important thing is exercising my mind and the minds of people in Merseyside, and I have been in touch with the Ministry of Transport about it. We in Liverpool have had a long connection with the Cunard Company. In I960 I worked very hard with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) and Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) trying to settle industrial disputes. We, and nobody else, settled the seamen's strike in 1960. That was a hard battle, fought over many weeks.
We settled that strike in the hope that we should retain great shipping companies such as the C.P.R. and the Cunard Company at the Port of Liverpool for the benefit of all concerned. We heard with regret yesterday a rumour, and it may be a very substantial rumour, that the Cunard Company might be leaving our port. I want this House to know how disappointed will be the commercial, shipping and other industrial interests of Merseyside if that great maritime organisation leaves the Port of Liverpool. Instead of there being an attraction from the South to the North, it seems that the South is attracting from the North.
Mr. Speaker, you have given me a great deal of time—I have probably taken up too much time—but I speak not only

for myself but for people born and bred in the same environment as I was. The docks, the welfare of the docks, the progress of the dock system and the good relationships inside that dock system are absolutely essential to the economic benefit and prosperity of the country. I hope that when the Devlin Report is debated it will be along the lines of trying to bring to this industry a dignity that has never before been there—a social dignity and a personal dignity that we have never had. I hope that the House will take notice of at least some of the things that I have said, and I am very grateful for the opportunity of having been able to say them.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might first express my personal pleasure at speaking under your chairmanship. This is the first opportunity I have had of offering you my congratulations, and I am glad to have that chance.
I was concerned lest we might have a rather ragged debate this afternoon, as we are dealing with the two separate subjects of transport and technology, but I cannot help thinking that this debate has once more illustrated the profound interest taken in transport on all sides of the House.
With hon. Members on both sides of the House, I join in commiseration with the Minister of Transport for what after all is his most unenviable task. I wish also to join with that the name of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who once more is in his place, tireless as ever. I think I am right in saying that he replied to no fewer than 32 Adjournment debates on transport matters during the last Session. Once more we have the pleasure of speaking to him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in his speech on the Address last week, regretted that the Gracious Speech made such a very small reference to transport. He referred to the fact that only three lines of the Speech, in the last paragraph but two, dealt with that subject. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we had a right to expect more on this vital subject. We had a right to expect more because the whole economy of the nation is very largely dependent upon an effective transport system and we cannot


look forward to an improvement in the economy and to making our export drive really effective until our transport system has been speeded up and improved.
I am led to the conclusion that the brevity of the reference to transport in the Gracious Speech means that we are not to see any very considerable improvement upon the former Administration's programme for road development, at least during the coming 12 months. If that is the case, it is a matter for great disappointment. Because of the Measures announced in July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears that instead we shall have a cut-back, or at least a delay, in the road-building programme. This is a matter of grave concern to everyone, not only in this House but throughout the country.
Another matter which I was very surprised to find omitted, not only from the Gracious Speech but from the remarks of the Minister of Transport in his opening speech this afternoon, was any comment on the 1962 Transport Act. The right hon. Gentleman did not indicate that he intends to widen the powers which he has under that Act. Section 27 of that Act provides that
The Minister, may, after consultation with any Board, give to that Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest.
I have always maintained—and I have said so before in this House—that this Section has enabled the right hon. Gentleman to escape from what I regard as a moral obligation on the part of the Government to prevent certain of the closures of goods stations and other parts of the railway system on which closure orders were issued prior to October, 1964, from taking effect. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that he at least proposed to bring in some form of Amendment to give him wider powers in this respect. In Labour's manifesto at the last General Election, under a section headed, "Plan for Transport ", we find in the first paragraph reference to:
paralysis on our national highways 
with special reference to congestion in the summer months.
Twelve months later we have the right to find some positive proposals in this

matter. In the second paragraph of the same Section there is an attack on the previous Conservative Administration for adopting and enacting the first Beeching Report. It says that:
axing of rail services under the Beeching Plan … made things worse.
That means that there has been greater congestion as a result of that policy. In paragraph 3 of the same section there is a promise that:
major rail closures will be halted.
We are always in difficulty about what is a major and what is a minor rail closure. If the rail closure happens to affect us individually, no matter how small the line may be, it becomes a matter of major concern to us. If, on the other hand, it is remote from us, it becomes a minor closure. This is one of the most difficult of all definitions. The time has come for the Government to say quite unequivocally that they will not authorise any further rail closures, at least until such time as they have produced their co-ordinated transport policy, about which we have heard so much.
In that same section of the Labour Party's manifesto, in paragraph 6, we have these very telling remarks:
Labour will ensure that public transport is able to provide a reasonable service for those who live in rural areas.
As one who represents a constituency in a rural area, I can certainly say that that pledge has not yet been fulfilled. The fact that in some cases rail closures have taken place in rural areas has had precisely the opposite effect to the intent spelled out in those words.
It is important that the Government should take another look at the whole question of the rail programme. I am convinced that the electorate believed as a result of statements which appeared not only in the manifesto, and not only in speeches by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but in Press reports and articles at the time of the General Election, that the Beeching Plan would at least be halted until such time as a co-ordinated transport programme had been evolved by a Labour Government. But that has not been the case. Even within the last couple of months there have been two examples within the boundaries of my constituency where two new rail closures have been ordered, although of course


they have not yet been confirmed by the Minister. I trust that they will not be confirmed.
The tragedy is that rail closures have taken place without provision being made for an adequate alternative service in the sense that road conditions are very often quite inadequate to meet the additional demand put upon them. Whenever a rail closure takes place in these cases it is imperative that money should be allocated for necessary road improvements because in many cases the closure not only results in congestion upon narrow country roads but has an even worse effect, an increase in the accident hazard. There was an example of this in my constituency when there was the closure of the branch line between Lostwithiel and Fowey. There double-decker buses have to pass in a road which in places is no wider than 15 ft. and the dangers are considerable, and it is a two way traffic road. Last summer a school bus was involved in an accident, although fortunately there were no children on board at the time. This kind of accident should be avoided. Where such rail closures are contemplated it is imperative that the Government should provide the necessary money for essential road improvements.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Is my hon. Friend aware that in having buses substituted for the line which has been closed his constituency is in luck? I know of a line which was to be closed. We were told that adequate bus services would be provided. Fortunately, somebody got out a measuring tape and found that the distance between the road surface and the bridge would be inadequate. Therefore, the line had temporarily to be kept open, because no bus could get under the railway line. Yet we were assured that this was an adequate alternative.

Mr. Bessell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that example. It illustrates to an even greater extent the lack of planning and co-ordination in this matter. It is one which is of vital concern to hon. Members on all sides. I hope that we can have an assurance tonight from the Minister of Technology, when he replies, that the Government will take a much closer look at all proposed rail closures in the months ahead.
I believe that the railways still have a vital part to play. I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the Minister of Transport on the introduction of experimental liner train service. I realise that this is only an experiment, but let us at least see what it is like, how it works, and how effectively it serves the country before we condemn it. This is one positive step forward, and we should pay tribute to the Minister of Transport for the initiative he has taken in this matter, particularly in the last few months.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every rail closure proposal is now being submitted to the appropriate regional planning board and regional economic planning council. Therefore, we shall now have the advantage of the advice of the planners on the spot, people who are acquainted with the local road conditions.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am afraid that this will not satisfy me. I do not think that it will satisfy any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a constituency in the far west. To illustrate the point, I will take the case of the proposal to close the branch line between Looe and Liskeard. I understand that this has already been submitted to the regional council and that the council has recommended a closure. To me, it is incredible that this could happen, since it means that between June and August about 45,000 passengers who previously travelled by rail will now have to travel on a road which is totally inadequate for present demands, let alone the very considerable additional demands this will place upon it.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not under-estimate the problems of the West Country, which I know as well as the hon. Gentleman does. Perhaps he would like to tell the House what the Liberal Party's solution is to this very difficult problem, because wholly uneconomic services are to be cut to save public money and in the West Country there are roads which carry a tremendous seasonal traffic but which in the winter are empty.

Mr. Bessell: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that the answer is not so difficult as it appears to be at first glance. First, I do not believe that any rail closure should be authorised until the money has been allocated for an improvement to the road which will have to carry the additional traffic resulting from that closure. In the long term this would mean that a line which was losing money would be closed but that there would still be an adequate means of getting to and from the points served by that line, even during periods of high demand.
I recognise that in these days of difficulties, with capital expenditure restricted, this would be a long-term policy. It is for this reason, and because I recognise the Government's difficulty in providing the additional capital at the moment, that I believe that these services should remain. They are still imperative, not only for convenience, but for the development of areas such as the West Country where there are unemployment problems.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) referred to the necessity of co-ordinating the transport of coal and other heavy goods by rail rather than by road. The hon. Gentleman said that a very considerable tonnage of coal comes into Cornwall by sea and by road which previously travelled by rail. The hon. Gentleman said that if this traffic could be returned to the railways it would go a long way towards making the rail services economic and solving the deficiency problem.
This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw the Minister of Transport's attention to this fact. I cannot dwell too long on rail services, much as I would like to do so. The truth is that this is something in which hon. Members on all sides of the House are greatly concerned. I am convinced that we must make the best possible use of our rail services. We must do everything we can to make them competitive. We must modernise the railways. We must ensure that they play an effective part in a properly co-ordinated transport service.
I have some real sympathy with the Minister of Transport on the subject of roads. I realise that any action he may wish to take is governed by the economic conditions confronting the nation. I shall

not waste time by discussing whether that is the result of 13 years of Conservative administration, whether it is the result of the Labour Party's administration after the second world war, or whether it is the result of the last 12 months. I do not believe that people are really concerned about whose fault it is. They are much more concerned to know what is to happen in the future.
I realise that the Minister has a very real problem, not only to complete the programme bequeathed to him by his predecessor, but also to attempt to improve that programme in the way which is necessary to meet modern demands, demands which are likely to increase in the years ahead.
I have spoken recently in the House on the subject of building motorways financed by loans raised by the Government and repaid over a period of 15 or 20 years by means of a small toll. I shall not go into the details of this suggestion again tonight. I ask the Minister of Transport to give us an assurance that he will at least consider this as a possible solution. There is no need for the whole of the capital cost of a motorway to be raised by means of a public loan and repaid by a toll. It would certainly assist the road-building programme if part of the capital cost could be raised by this means, because the benefit to the economy as a whole would far outweigh the small amount which would be involved by way of cost to the motorist.
It is a well known fact that the saving in terms of fuel and time and wear and tear on the vehicle for the driver of a heavy goods vehicle, or for that matter the driver of a passenger vehicle or a motor car, travelling from point A to point B on a motorway type road would far outweigh the small toll he would have to pay to meet the cost of building that road and amortising it over a period of 15 or 20 years.
There is ample evidence of the truth of this argument. There is the example of Canada, the United States, France, Italy and other countries, which have used this method because they have been unable to provide the money from treasury funds. The resultant benefits have been so considerable that to me it is incredible that the Ministry of Transport did not take this matter seriously long ago.
The docks require the Government's urgent attention during the coming 12 months. There is no doubt that the future of our export drive will depend upon the efficiency of our docks, not only the conditions under which the dockers are working. I was very interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). It must be remembered that for many years we have lagged behind in capital expenditure on improvements to the docks themselves and to the access roads to them. These are matters which should have priority in the Government's planning in the months ahead.
We have a right to ask the Government to take account, in any co-ordinated transport system, of the existing canals and waterways which are surely overdue for a survey. They may well have a real use in this age. They are a cheap means of transporting over long distances where speed is not the main consideration. I should like to think that the Minister will give some attention to some of these inland waterways which I believe have still a useful part to play in the moving of heavy and bulky items that come on to the road and are unsuitable for rail transport.
Then there is the question of airways. As I have said many times before, and no doubt will say many times again, it is useless to talk about regional development and taking to the areas in the far West, in Mid-Wales or in the north of Scotland, the industrial developments necessary to give people in those areas the same degree of prosperity as is enjoyed by people in the big urban centres, unless we not only have better road communications but also have the airports which will enable executive and business men, buyers and sellers, to travel to and from these places quickly and efficiently. I welcome the initiative which has been taken in the West Country by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in this matter. I am sure that the people in his constituency are very indebted to him for the work which he is doing.
On the question of co-ordination, I accept the point which the Minister has made. This is a problem which has confronted every country of the Western world for many years. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I cannot think of any country which has solved this

problem. It would be most unfair, wholly unrealistic and even stupid to expect that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry could resolve this problem in a matter of twelve months in office. To suggest that this could have happened and a properly co-ordinated transport system could have been produced in that time is little better than nonsense. I do not expect for a moment that it will be done within the next twelve months either.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member was referring to the nonsense of asking too much, but he has been asking for improved roads to the docks, for improved docks, airways and canals. Can he give us the priority he wants? At the moment he is asking for Utopia.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member has heard part of my speech—I do not know which part. He has 'not heard all of it and has not been present during the whole of the debate. If he had listened and had heard my speech, he would have known that I gave priority to the docks and the roads leading to the docks because they are essential to the economy of the nation because of the export drive. I said also that the Ministry should undertake, whilst the economic crisis is with us and capital expenditure is restricted, not to authorise any further rail closures. I have said that there is priority in the matter of transport to regional areas. All these things are frightfully important if we are to have a transport system which will enable us to recover our economic position and to distribute the wealth of the nation throughout the length and breadth of the land.
These are long-term policies. I do not ask the Minister to give an undertaking that these things shall be carried out during the next few months, but we want an assurance from him that these matters are being earnestly considered by his Ministry and that in the course of the next few months he will give us a programme to which we can look forward.
As for co-ordination, I return to the original point, namely, that I would hope that we might have some detailed proposal from him today whilst at the same time I realise that this is a difficult problem to solve. I have welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has


said that he will be making a further statement to the House before Christmas. Assuming that the House sits until Christmas eve, I shall have to wait a further 38 days. I am quite prepared to do that. I hope that we shall have some indication of the Minister's thoughts on co-ordinating the transport services and that he will retain within that framework the essential competition which is necessary for any efficient transport system in any country.
On the subject of safety, we have read a great deal about the horror of motorway pile-ups. We cannot under-estimate the fact that there is a great deal of very bad and inefficient driving on our roads. Is the Minister satisfied with the present system of driving tests? Is he satisfied that this matter does not require a reexamination, and whether people should not be re-tested after a period of time? There is no doubt that bad driving is still one of the main causes of the very high accident rate in this country. It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association, which is very concerned that there should be a high standard of driving among its members, has had a remarkable accident-free record. This is something which warrants a little investigation.
As for motorway pile-ups, it is worth noting that illuminated warning signs were erected on the M.5 some two winters ago and during that time there were only two crashes in foggy conditions, neither of them fatal. Therefore, in my view, it has been shown that the warning signs have proved effective, particularly when one compares the considerable accident rates on the M.1 and the M.6 neither of which bear these warning signs.
Whilst on the question of safety—and the Gracious Speech refers to this specifically—there is need for more mobile police to be seen around, because if they are seen it has a salutary effect on bad and careless drivers. People are far more likely to observe the existing laws if they can see that there is danger of their being caught. An eminent personage is reported in the Evening Standard as suggesting punitive punishments might be a good idea for bad drivers. I have no quarrel with that suggestion. The Minister might well consider the need to

introduce new legislation to toughen the penalties for bad and careless and wantonly speedy driving. I recall driving a few months ago in New York State and seeing a sign on the highway which read, "Speeders lose licences". I enquired whether this had any meaning and I was told that it had every meaning. Anyone who broke the speed limit lost his licence automatically. There is a great deal to be said for that kind of highly effective punishment for a person found guilty of breaking the law without any consideration of the consequences.
I believe that there is much more detail needed from the Minister than we have heard in his speech today. I regret his failure to take the kind of powers which I believe he should take if he is to prevent the Beeching Plan from causing real damage to our rail system. I regret the year which has passed in which there has had to be delay in capital expenditure on the road programme and I regret the facts which led to that delay. Nevertheless, an attempt is being made and, within the restrictions put upon him by the present economic condition, the Minister is doing his best.
I do not hesitate to make my criticisms tonight, but I could not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Opposition in the Lobby on their Amendment. [Laughter.] I shall explain why. I thought that I heard the word "lackey "used by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). I do not regard as constructive, helpful or likely to be of assistance either to the country or to this House the putting down of an Amendment which
regrets that the Gracious Speech contains little promise of progress in the modernisation of industry, notably in the fields of transport and technology 
when it is plain to everyone who has eyes to see and the wish to see that the financial restrictions placed upon the Minister today make it impossible to carry out the kind of programme which everyone in the House and the country wants to see undertaken.
For this reason, I find it impossible to support the Amendment. Moreover, it is obvious to everyone that, if the Conservative Opposition were sitting on the Government benches, they would not be able to do any better in present conditions. I have listened to speaker after


speaker from these benches today, and I have heard not one suggestion from them which would indicate a way of overcoming the financial problems which restrict the Government and prevent them improving the programme, however much they may want to do so.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset,West): Is the hon. Gentleman aware— [HON. MEMBERS: "He has just come in."]— that a very large proportion of the cuts made in the road programme are in the South-West? Does he think that this is fair?

Mr. Bessell: As hon. Members pointed out, the hon. Gentleman has only just come in. I really do not know why I gave way to him. I have already referred at length, and, I am sure, to the boredom of many hon. Members, to the fact that I deplore the cut-back in road schemes. I recognise that it has been necessary, but no one has shown greater concern than I have in the House during the past 12 months to do everything possible to persuade the Government not to cut back the road schemes but, rather, to improve them.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was here throughout a large part of his speech, when he was attacking the Conservative Opposition and saying that they could not do any better. Exactly what suggestions has he to make on behalf of the Liberal Party which could possibly assist?

Mr. Bessell: This is quite incredible. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members on this side are completely deaf. One constructive suggestion I made, which no one has challenged, for improving the road building scheme and assisting the Treasury at the present time was that public loans should be raised for the building of motorways.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to repeat his speech for the benefit of those who have just come in.

Mr. Bessell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will read my speech tomorrow, he will find that it contains several, so I hope and believe, constructive suggestions.

Mr. Tom Fraser: indicated assent.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his agreement. I hope that that agreement will show some practical results in the months ahead.
Our transport system and the road programme, including, in particular, the modernisation of the railways, have been neglected for over 50 years. This is not a problem which can be resolved in one or two years. It is not one which will be solved quickly. The problem of coordination is very difficult indeed. But it is incumbent upon hon. Members on both sides to admit that they have failed to resolve the problem themselves during the past 20 or 30 years. I make no political point here. I am not saying that the past Administration should have done more or should have done less, and I am not saying that the previous Labour Government should have done more or should have done less. I am pointing out only that, as the problem has not been solved for so long, it is absurd to expect that it can be solved in 12 months or, indeed, in the coming 12 months. I personally wish the right hon. Gentleman well in what I know is a most difficult task. I believe that all hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have real sympathy with him in his considerable problems.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) into all aspects of transport, although I know that many of us on this side will agree with some of his observations and will feel that it was impertinent of certain Conservative Members who had not listened to the debate and who came in at the tail end of his speech to interrupt him in the way they did.
It is a custom of the House that an hon. Member should declare the fact if he has a particular interest in the subject under discussion. I readily do so on this occasion. Prior to the General Election in October last year, I was in the employ of British Railways as a railway shop man working in one of the motive power depots in the East Midlands. I claim to know something of the problems of railway men and women, and I hasten to assure my right hon. Friend that many railway men and women are rather critical of Government policy. They would prefer the Government to have halted all railway closures until such time


as a plan for co-ordination had been produced.
Earlier today the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) expressed criticism of public ownership. I accept the principle of public ownership and want to see it extended. Certain features of railway policy can be criticised, however. My main criticism is that voiced by railway-men all over the country. It is criticism not only of policy but of the management of the day-to-day affairs of the British Transport Commission. The rot in the industry set in when the Tories denationalised road haulage. Since then, the industry has been chopped and carved and subjected to harsh criticism in this House. Railwaymen are alarmed by many of the things happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popple-well) dealt at some length today with the policy towards the railway workshops. Many railwaymen cannot understand why workshops which have been modernised through expenditure of taxpayers' money should suddenly have been closed. For instance, the Swindon points and crossings shop was relatively new— built in about 1960— and was specially constructed and laid out for the manufacture of points and crossings. It cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Although there is adequate work for it, most of this has been allocated to private firms and the shop is due to close next month.
The same applies to Doncaster wagon shop. A considerable sum has been spent on improving it in recent years. About £ 250,000 was expended on the provision of an up-to-date substation for electricity supply and on a new cable throughout the works. In addition, modern toilets were installed. These improvements cost thousands of pounds. Despite this, the Board has decided to move the men, the machines and their work to a shop two or three miles away in Doncaster and the former wagon shop has, it is understood, been sold to a Mr. Arthur Snipe, a mining machinery manufacturer. Although the price is not known, the premises are reported to have been sold rather cheaply.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) is here.

I would not like to trespass upon his territory but, as one who went over the Darlington railway workshops some years ago, I assure the House that the locomotive works, due to close in April, is a most modern diesel railcar multiple unit shop equipped to repair and maintain engine units, gear boxes, pumps and final drives, using the latest techniques and equipment.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to look again at the policy towards railway workshops. Some of us are perturbed that, by the time the necessary legislation is through the House allowing workshops to compete for orders in engineering, no workshops will be left to compete. A few years ago there were 120,000 men in the workshops. The figure is down to about 60,000. No one can say that the railwaymen have not accepted modernisation. They did so a few years ago and as a result the men have co-operated with successive Governments, although well knowing that it would mean a certain amount of redundancy. They say now, however, that it is time a halt was called to closures and I hope that the Government will look again at the problem, because the position is getting really serious.
Earlier this year, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced the annual Price Review, speaker after speaker from the benches opposite—including an odd voice or two from the Liberal Party— rose to appeal for extra cash for the farmers. I am doing the same thing now on behalf of the railwaymen. Like the farming industry, the railway industry is one of the great bloodstreams of the nation and if ever it came to another war— which God forbid— we should realise how dependent we are upon the railways.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is not so much a question of cash but of the work being farmed out to private enterprise that could be done in railway workshops? This is borne out by the fact that, only three or four weeks before the Darlington closure was announced, a substantial order for diesel locomotives was given to a private enterprise firm. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport must look at the allocation of


available, work as between private and public enterprise and see that these orders are placed in the first instance with public enterprise.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir. I agree with every word of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. In fact, a large number of orders for the building of new locomotives have been allocated to private firms such as Brush and English Electric. As evidence of this, in 1965 delivery of new locomotives from private manufacturers will number 300. Apart from this, an order for 50 Type 1 diesel locomotives has recently been awarded to English Electric. This is happening when British Railways workshops are unemployed.
Other work, too, is going out to private enterprise, and railwaymen are asking, I sometimes think rightly, "Is there anyone in the top sphere of management of British Railways who has shares in outside engineering firms?". That is a common saying by railwaymen in railway workshops throughout the country. Some of us are somewhat suspicious that this may possibly be the case. For instance, the whole of British Railways' requirements for concrete sleepers is to be produced by outside firms, including Costains and Dowmak. These orders cover the replacement of wood sleepers by concrete sleepers on all trunk routes over the next five to 10 years. Orders for concrete articles are being placed with the Devon Concrete Co. of Barnstaple, but not long ago British Railways closed their Exmouth Junction Concrete Works. To the ordinary railwayman this seems absolutely absurd. No one has yet produced figures to suggest that these articles can be produced more cheaply by private enterprise. Railwaymen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is well aware, in the shops at Darlington have proved to the management that many of the things which have gone to outside tender could have been produced more cheaply in railway workshops.
In the Road Motor Engineer's Department, contracts for tyre maintenance and replacement have been placed with outside firms, including Brown Brothers. Tyre maintenance in the past has been economically undertaken by railway staff. Is it any wonder that railwaymen are a little peeved and disturbed when they look at the present management and rail-

way policy? The civil engineers and the signal engineers of the Western Region are hiring motor vehicles, whereas previously they had allocations of railway-owned vehicles which were maintained in the Road Motor Engineer's Department. Furniture repairs have been allocated to private firms at places far from the main workshop centres, although this kind of work was formerly undertaken by staff in the main works.
Again, a considerable amount of breaking up work formerly carried out in the railway workshops has been lost. Complete locomotives and other vehicles are being sold to scrap merchants for breaking up, and a number of railway depots undertaking this class of work have been closed. Just before the General Election some engines were being sold to a firm in Sheffield. Since the General Election, when British Railways could not meet all their commitments and when jobs were being cancelled through lack of power, British Railways engines were being held up for the lack of springs. I am given to understand that since the election a number of locomotives have been sold to scrap merchants and that railway staff have gone to a scrap merchant's yard, taken the springs off the engines and brought them back for use by British Railways.
Is it any wonder that railwaymen are critical not of the Government but of the policy, because in many respects it is typical Tory policy? Wagon repairs are still being diverted to private firms, mostly in South Wales. Orders for rolling stock for the London Transport Board's new Victoria line, which could have been built in railway workshops, were awarded to a private firm. I could go on and on about this. There is a vast amount of criticism at the lack of a coherent policy by those in charge of British Railways. The average railwayman was very glad to see Dr. Beeching go. One constituent of mine said to me, "You gave the Beatles the M.B.E. for making people happy and you made Dr. Beeching a lord because he made so many people sad ". That view is being reflected by railwaymen in various parts of the country. I understand that at a recent consultative meeting in the North-Eastern Region a top-level official of the British Railways Board in that region stated that the only way in which he could achieve


his object was if there were a further reduction in traffic.
It seems that the railways do not want traffic. According to a report in a local newspaper only last week, the pigeon fanciers of Cumberland, who spend about £ 7,000 a year with British Railways, have been told by the Railways Board that they had better go to private enterprise for transport for their pigeons. [Laughter.] The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) seems to like that. He has an interest in private ownership. At one time he was interested in the aircraft workers, but evidently he is not interested in the railway workers.

Mr. Hogg: I wanted to say, in order to protect my personal honour, only that I am not one of the pigeon fanciers of Cumberland and have no interest in pigeons at all.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think that that sounds funny, but I remind him that he certainly has an interest in private enterprise, and it is private enterprise which I am attacking.
It was reported recently that goods stations in some regions were hiring containers to private hauliers and thus creating a shortage of containers, with the result that some traffic had had to be turned away. This is a criticism not of the Government, but of the Railways Board's policy. Many railway men always have been and always will be keen and loyal supporters of the Labour Party, and many of us hope that the Labour Government will be able to assist them to the ends for which many of them are working.
It has been said by a number of hon. Members today that heavy traffic must be taken from the roads and put back on the railways. The roads are cluttered. Is there an hon. Member who has been in a traffic jam caused by a heavy vehicle who has not said at some time that heavy traffic should go back to the railways? I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider a policy to that end.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether electrification will be extended to Carlisle and even on to Scotland? I share the view that electrification should be extended and I hope that in due course

the vast network of our railway system will be electrified.
There are many who believe that England ends on the north-east side with Newcastle and on the north-west side with Preston. I join with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in asking the Minister to do everything in his power to extend the A.6 by-pass beyond Kendal and up to Carlisle. Such an extension is vitally necessary. Hardly a week goes by without accident cases being taken to Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle. The hospital is now regarded by doctors almost as a casualty ward for the victims of the many accidents on the A.6 in that area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take at least some notice of the pressure being brought to bear by a newspaper in my constituency, a newspaper which is not Socialist or even Labour but Tory-controlled and which has been pressing for modifications to the A.6.
Finally, I hope that the co-ordination envisaged in the Queen's Speech will take account of the railways and of the roads and that my right hon. Friend will get down to considering a national plan for the roads, for the railways, for aircraft and for the docks

8.50 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) has not left me sufficient time to follow him in all the points made. There is one particularly interesting feature about this debate, and that is that while almost every hon. Member opposite prefaces his remarks on transport with grandiose phrases about "integrated national transport plans and organizations ", we had no less than 170 minutes speaking time from the Government benches before there was mention of the word "aeroplane". I think that reveals what a modern, progressive party we have in Government today. Having said that, I am not going to refer to aircraft or airport matters.
There are two points which I want to make, which I hope will be constructive— they are certainly meant to be. The first deals with road safety and the second with technology. For too long motorists have been tending to blame the roads for many of their mishaps. The accident rate which


we see at the present time on some of the motorways shows quite clearly that they are not entirely blameless. It is surprising that individuals who are normally meek and mild, once they get behind the wheel of a car, in a steel box, in a world of their own, become demons and maniacs. Even elderly ladies with failing eyesight, who would hesitate to play around with an 8-inch howitzer, do not think twice about stepping into a car and driving off in a weapon every bit as lethal.
My suggestion, which I hope the Minister will take in a constructive spirit, is aimed at approaching the problem of road safety through the mind of the motorist with a view to overcoming what I believe to be the most dangerous of all attitudes, namely, "It can't happen to me." There are two things to which no man on earth would like to admit. One is to having bad breath and the other is to being a bad driver. The Minister of Transport could make a far greater use of television to demonstrate the common faults and failings of motorists and to show up so many of the little mistakes which everyone makes on the road and which lead to accidents. Motorists are often blissfully ignorant of some of the little faults which they commit.
Could the Minister gain the collaboration of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in another place to produce a television serial on. rather the same lines as "Dixon of Dock Green" which would help to educate the public about motoring in a way that was interesting and which would hold public attention? I tried to make this suggestion to the Minister last summer in the form of a Parliamentary Question, but I am afraid that he brushed it aside. I believe that this is a point worth looking into. If his Ministry and a useful and talented scriptwriter, such as the one I have mentioned, could be brought together, I think that something valuable could come out of it.
There is one example which I think is relevant at a time when there is a great deal of fog about. In daytime fog something like five motorists out of six go along happily with their sidelights on. Invariably one can see a car before its sidelights, and this is a complete waste of time. Why cannot the Ministry give more publicity to asking motorists to put

on their headlights in daytime fog, and snow storms? I have seen posters put up at various street corners, but not nearly enough is done. This is the sort of point which could be made in a television programme.
I turn briefly to a point on technology. I regret that last summer I was discourteous enough to refer to the Minister of Technology in his absence as the Achilles heel of the Labour Party. I hope that I can rectify this act of discourtesy by repeating it in his presence. I complained then, as I do now, that he is neglecting Scotland's interests. If I am wrong, I hope very much that he will be able to correct me later this evening by giving me an answer to a specific question concerning Edinburgh University. This is not a little local problem but a national problem, as can be seen by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised it earlier this evening.
In July 1964, I understand, Edinburgh University applied for a computer in order to satisfy its teaching and research needs. It was rumoured shortly afterwards— I believe in the autumn— that the University Grants Committee was rather favourably inclined towards this idea. But then, as we know, there was a change of Government and a reorganisation of the scientific structure took place. Since then, Professor Flowers has carried out an inquiry. He was, I believe, supposed to have reported in April. I do not know what has happened to his report. I regret to say that I have been unable to discover it.
The delay is very harmful, because not only is it holding up the teaching and research progress which Edinburgh University would like to make, but a large and talented group of experts has been built up by the director of the computer section in Edinburgh University and there is a danger that some of these people will drift away. I understand that one man has already left and that three others are considering accepting posts elsewhere. This is a great pity since a very valuable team has been built up.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could give a specific answer tonight and say what decision he will arrive at or when a decision can be made and at least ensure that he will break down what


appears to be a network of bureaucratic indecision, confusion and delay. It would satisfy Edinburgh University and would. I believe, enable it to get on with an extremely valuable job in the country.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): It is, I hope and believe, no discourtesy to the great number of interesting speeches delivered by hon. Members on both sides of the House today when I say that, to me at least, this has been a very disappointing occasion. It was supposed to be— and I speak with humility in returning to the words of the Amendment — a debate on "the modernisation of industry". Of course, it was hoped that there would be two or three particular examples, of which we named two— transport and technology— from which hon. Members on both sides could take their inspiration. But what has happened? So far as I know, with the exception of the admirable speech of my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and another constituency speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), all the speeches have been about transport and the great majority of the speeches from the other side of the House have been from those intellectual crustaceans whose sole contribution to the modernisation of industry is to urge the Government in various tones of abuse to reverse the policy of closure of some of the installations of British Railways.
This must, of course, have been as much of a disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology as it was to me. I suppose that this was why they dug me out of the law courts to wind up and dug the right hon. Gentleman up out of his ruminations on his conflict of loyalties— about which his colleagues in the House of Lords spoke so movingly the other day— to reply. Here we are, both of us, all dressed up and with nowhere to go. This is more of a trouble to the right hon. Gentleman than to me, but I hope that he and I will do our best to help one another with the debate, which we are both to wind up, on the modernisation of industry.
I share the disappointment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) at the speech of

the Minister of Transport. It was not so much his pathetic failure to defend his inability to retain his road-building programme in his conflict with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have all had our conflicts with Chancellors of the Exchequer, and it is no humiliation— not, at any rate, unshared by other Ministers and ex-Ministers— to have failed in one of those conflicts.
What disappointed me in this respect was was the right hon. Gentleman's defence of his failure. He did not seem to understand the case which is being made against this Government on that point. Just over a year ago the country was being led to believe that if only they had the wisdom, as it was put, to return a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS:"Bonkers."]— they would be given a whole new clutch of hospitals, schools, roads and houses, all of it with an increase in the welfare services and no general increase in taxation. I am quoting, from memory, from the all-highest in this respect.
As everybody knows, of course, what has happened is that they have not had the clutch of new schools, hospitals, roads or houses, but they have had a general increase in taxation. So they have all been swindled. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for his party's road programme to come to the House and ask "What would you have cut?", because the truth is that we could have managed with our whole capital programme— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] We did not have to get our overdraft guaranteed. It is they who had to get their overdraft guaranteed, a situation which is now regarded universally on the opposite side of the House as the acme of financial genius.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman asking me why I voted against the increase of taxation to pay for his roads, because the fact is that he promised a vast increase of roads without a general increase in taxation. I was only casting my vote in favour of the Government keeping their election promises. But that is not the burden of my complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. He was obviously doing his best in an impossible situation, a situation which all Ministers have to face from time to time. He had lost his battle with the Treasury, and so


he adopted the ploy which Ministers always do of pointing to the Opposition and saying: "Well, what would you do?" We have all done that in our time, and it is a very good ploy.
What really disappointed me about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not his failure to defend his defeat over a road programme which he had sworn to defend with his life as recently as March. What disappointed me was his apparent inability to understand the seriousness of the problems with which he is faced.
As several hon. Gentlemen on this side have pointed out during the course of the debate, what we are faced with at the moment is a rail system which was, to the great credit of our ancestors, not only built but designed before 1855. There are about 17,000 miles of rail track in the country, and about 120,000 miles of road. The right hon. Gentleman's recipe for carrying us into the twenty-first century is to take part of the traffic which is carried on the 120,000 miles of road and put it on to the 17,000 miles of rail. That would be all right if the rail system was devised for the twentieth or even the twenty-first century. But it is not. The distance between stations and the nature and shape of the branch lines were based and designed on the hypothesis that rail transport was the only type of mechanical transport available. The only alternative was the- horse and cart. When he turns to the roads, he finds that the 120,000 miles of road or thereabouts which there are in the country were also designed for the horse and cart, with the exception of relatively few modern roads.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency, and well he might. Very nearly all the buildings in my constituency are new. If my grandfather, who lived there, went through my constituency he would not recognise the buildings, but he would recognise all the streets because they are exactly the same. They were designed for the horse and cart in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The right hon. Gentleman's remedy for the problem with which he is faced at the moment is to try to force back on to rail traffic which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) clearly established was not suitable for rail, and he has failed to state at any moment of time at all

the real fact of the case, which is that our transport system needs redesigning from the start.
It is no good prattling about new signalling systems or little bits of electrification here and there. The system needs redesigning as a whole, and the right hon. Gentleman has not even begun to establish the need.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking about the distance between stations, but the distance between London and Glasgow is exactly the same as it was in 1855. Today there are many hundreds of lorries running all the way between London and Glasgow carrying merchandise. It seems to me that it would be of great social benefit for the whole of the country if a lot of that traffic were taken off the road and put on the rail, and that is one of the things that will be done by the liner trains, which started last night.

Mr. Hogg: Oddly enough, the Minister has not yet tumbled to the fact that there are a number of stations between London and Glasgow and that the average distance between them is about 2½ miles. Since he raises the question of the comparability of road and rail, he might at least recognise the fact that throughout the world the flexibility of road transport over rail transport is something that has established certain advantages which no sensible Minister can ignore, but which a lot of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends do ignore.
The fact of double handling, which is inherent in every rail journey, has never once been mentioned from the opposite side of the House in this debate—

Mr. Fraser: That is not true. In my speech, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he listened, I spoke of the advantages of rail traffic if we were able to use containerisation a little more. That is exactly what the railways are now doing. It is exactly the example of the liner trains. It avoids double handling.

Mr. Hogg: But what the Minister never really faced was the fact that double handling was necessary in every rail journey. If he analysed the traffic figures, which he claims to have studied, he would realise that it is physically an impossibility to place upon our rail services the great


proportion of the increased traffic which has come on our roads.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), to whose last speech I listened also with great interest, did not appear to have appreciated that much of the traffic to which he referred would not fit on the railways because of the size of the tunnels and the height of the bridges. These, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, were designed and built at a time when the loads referred to did not exist to be carried at all.
The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman has been attempting to defend a policy which I can only describe in this way. He wishes to reinforce failure. He wishes to countermand success. He has sacked Beeching. He has shelved Geddes. He has shanghaied Hinton— I mean the report— he has buried Buchanan and he has forgotten Rochdale. His policy is to reinforce failure and to ignore technical advice.
However, I will leave the right hon. Gentleman for the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), who, with me, has to suffer from the fact that the whole of this debate has centred around transport, when both he and I were expecting and hoping to be answering a debate about the modernisation of industry, of which transport is only one aspect. I should have been much more scornful about the speeches we have heard from the other side had I not also had to recognise that, with two exceptions, the speeches on my side had dealt with transport, and not with the modernisation of industry.
The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) spoke once again of what he alleged to be the 13 years of sterile, empty, hateful, retrogressive Tory policy through which we had just passed. The right hon. Member for Nuneaton will no doubt be able to correct his hon. Friend, because by any objective criteria he will have to say, if he is pressed, that civil science progressed in those thirteen years faster than in any previous 50 of our history. We became the second technological nation of the West, second to the United States, and the United States had the advantage of scale and national income which we could not hope to emulate.[Interruption]

Mr. Archie Manuel: Good health.

Mr. Hogg: Public hospitality does not merit such a toast.
So far as anyone can judge, by any comparison, we expend more money per head of the population on civil science than the U.S.S.R. These achievements were made notwithstanding that the secular trends were against this society, secular trends which we could not prevent if we would deplore and which we could not deplore if we could prevent them. The development right across the world of alternative centres of industrial production, the loss of military power and political Government— in those thirteen years these were factors moving against this island, and we achieved what we achieved despite those factors.
If I may give the House one or two figures in order to inform the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, the proportion of our national income spent on research and development in those thirteen years rose from 1· 9 per cent.— which was still higher than that of any other European society— in 1951 to over 3 per cent. at present, I understand. The national income has risen in the interval from £ 13,000 million to about £ 27,000 million. No doubt the Prime Minister would remember the exact figure.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would discount it with the increase in prices, too.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman would not be able to discount the percentage because of the increase in prices. So I think that was an unwise intervention.
The breakdown of that expenditure on research and development moved in those thirteen years from about 60–40 in favour of military scientific expenditure in about 1951 to the contrary figure of 40–60 last year. Government expenditure on civil science during that period multiplied itself by a factor of not less than seven, from about £30 million, according to my recollection, to something like £180 million, and the research councils by a factor of four or five. This was backed by industrial spending of more than £ 300 million, plus the military expenditure to which I have referred.
Those: are not figures that hon. Members opposite can readily discount, because this myth of thirteen wasted years is always untrue, but in the field of civil science it presents a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman to which at the moment he has shown no signs of rising. So far from there being any sign that the right hon. Gentleman has achieved any advance in the field of civil science and technology, all the signs are that, through faults which are not mainly his but are mainly those of the right hon. Gentleman who is sitting on his left, civil science and technology in this country has retrogressed in the last year instead of advanced. The fact is, whether we look at transport or whether we look at any other branch of industry, that what this country is faced with is not something which can be completed in five years or in thirty years or in one year. We have to look forward to a period of continuous and progressive change in almost every field of economic activity, which will certainly last until the youngest of us is dead and in the grave.
What this country must face, and what is meant by the modernisation of Britain, is nothing less than the redesigning of this country's entire social and capital equipment. When I speak of the design of the railways, I speak not pejoratively of them. They were a tremendous feat, but they were designed and built before 1855. When I speak of the need for urban renewal, I speak not in contempt either of the right hon. Gentleman or of my colleagues. The fact is that most of the centres of our great cities were built for the horse and cart.
Before we can solve these technological problems, we must bring to bear the whole effort, intelligence and coordination of a nation. This is the real answer to the superficial charge of "thirteen wasted years". In those "thirteen wasted years" we built more than any other generation had built before and did more than any other series of Governments had done in a like period. But there still remains for this Government and for many successors to come years and years of patient effort until this country accomplishes its own part in the creation of a new human society. That new human society will go on developing at an ever increasing tempo,

in an ever more revolutionary way, until it has altered the entire physical face of human life in the planet. Therefore, it is idle for one Government or one side of the House to despise another for what it did or did not achieve in thirteen years. We must place high in our list of priorities this country's technological advance.
Technology is only the applied branch of science. It is nothing more, but it is nothing less. Science is the distinctive characteristic of our own generation and age to human civilisation. Other ages have been better at literature, drama, philosophy and religion, but we are at our best in science, pure and applied. That is when we are at our most sincere. This is when we are at our most effective.
In the very few moments during which I wish to take up the time of the House, I want to say one or two things to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology. It would have been very easy for me, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I have deliberately eschewed it —to have made some kind of personal fun of the position which he holds in the Government. I have deliberately avoided that course. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in an unenviable position. I think that the real person responsible for this Government's failure to modernise Britain is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is my target.
There are certain fundamental things which must be realised before we talk of harnessing science to any system of society or any system of society to science. One must understand something about the nature of science, and the right hon. Gentleman, when he made that famous speech, had not a clue. This has been established again and again by the extraordinary series of suggestions that he made immediately following that speech.
First, there was going to be a great Minister of Science. That went by the board. Then the right hon. Gentleman was going to divide out the science of this country amongst the various executive Departments. That went by the board. Then there were to be three Ministers, a science one, a research one and a higher education and technology one. That went by the board. Finally, he set his right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) the most unenviable and indeed impossible task, because technology cannot be cut off


from pure science. It is only the applied branch of pure science, and the Minister, sitting where he is, has cut it off from its roots.
Technology cannot be divided from education, but the Minister has divided it from technical education by the very fact of his appointment, and that is why the building programme for the technological universities and technical colleges has been cut short in the Chancellor's new measures. Procurement and sponsorship cannot be divided, but the right hon. Gentleman has divided them. He has taken on the sponsorship of the electronics and computer industries, but the Minister of Aviation, with the power of procurement in his hands, is able to ruin any little thing that the right hon. Gentleman is able to do.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot divide technology from business management, because at the level of industrial policy technology is only another facet of business management. But the right hon. Gentleman, by taking on responsibility for the great Government research laboratories from the Research Council, has tried to divide business management from technology. If he had set up the Industrial Research and Development Authority recommended by the Committee, he would have had at his disposal a great industrial authority backed by industrial scientists of repute, with liaison with all the board rooms of important industry, nationalised and private. But the right hon. Gentleman sits alone in his ivory tower on Millbank, unable to move in any direction and unable to influence either economic policy or business policy or education.
That is the measure of the right hon. Gentleman's failure. It is not his fault. He can reflect there upon his conflict of loyalties, but the person who is responsible for this failure is the Prime Minister, who, by his foolish and superficial judgment on this subject, to which he had given no prior thought of any importance at all, committed himself in advance to a policy which was doomed to failure.
All I would add to that is this. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology is to reply to this debate. I trust that he will tell us that his office will forthwith be abolished. There are

two alternative viable models for the organisation of technology in this country. One is to bring it back into the field of education and science, where science is now hopelessly oppressed by the great weight of the machine in Curzon Street and where the Secretary of State shows nothing but contempt for the scientific part of his work. Another is to integrate it with economic policy in the Board of Trade, which is in sorry need of some technological instruction and inspiration. But, either way, the right hon. Gentleman will have to break up his Ministry and destroy it. In the hope that he will tell us that that is what he will do, I now invite him to reply to the debate.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was quite right in supposing that I should be as disappointed as he was at the nature and tone of the debate. The Amendment moved by the Opposition was designed, I understood, to bring to a head the challenges put to the Minister of Transport in the holding of his office and to me in the holding of mine. It was to be a scathing attack on the Government and on the whole basis of their approach to the modernisation of industry. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for attempting, at the end, to bring a bit of life into it, though he certainly did not talk much about technology.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised one point of importance. He invited me to make clear that I would be party to the abolition of the office of Minister of Technology. He will be interested to know that, far from it being abolished, there is the intention to strengthen it, and, if it pleases the right hon and learned Gentleman, on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman sitting on my left, as he described him, the Prime Minister.[Interruption.] I shall come to most of the observations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made but I hope that those who have been so conspicuous by their absence from the debate will at least allow those one or two worthies who thought they would hear a debate on the modernisation of industry to have an opportunity of hearing it.
I heard with interest the point that no one should despise one side or the other


of the House for what they have not done in one year or in 13½ years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this is a job for all of us. The task of modernisation, the reconstruction of the whole of our economy, the recreation of our cities, the development of the fiscal arrangements which go towards making a modern society— all this is not a context in which one should say that it is someone's fault if he has not done it.

Sir Douglas Glover: The right hon. Gentleman has been saying it a good deal.

Mr. Cousins: This is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I have not noticed you in the House very often.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been here. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that he had not noticed the hon. Member for Ormskirk here. I hope that we may now proceed with the debate, in the same good humoured vein that has marked it so far.

Mr. Cousins: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I had, of course, seen you in the House. But the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I had not seen.
What I was speaking of just before the interruption is what Socialism is about. This is why we asked the electorate to put us into office, so that we could set out on the task and really do something about it. Again, I remind the House of something which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said. He said that we are not talking about a job for this year, but one for the next 50 years. But we hope to get it done a little quicker than that. At least, we shall start it. But I trust that, when we say that we should not accuse one another, this information will be conveyed by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to each other and to their back benchers. I appear to have been the victim of a lot of this kind of thing.
There has been little discussion of technology in the debate— which has been concentrated mainly on transport— although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Red-mayne), in his opening, indicated that there would be some reference to it. He also referred to co-ordination of trans-

port. Have right hon. and hon. Members opposite forgotten that we were on the basis of getting co-ordination in 1951, that we had started discussions about co-ordination?
A somewhat sneering comment was made about my not having experience in this House or a deep knowledge of industry. For a number of years I sat on the opposite side of Ministerial tables to successive Ministers of Transport to talk about this problem of co-ordination, but they destroyed the only opportunity there was by wrecking the system whereby feeder services of British Road Services were being used to bring quickly and effectively to the railheads goods for handling by the railways.[Interruption.] This was a long time before we even put Dr. Beeching in and not when we sacked him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The ex-Carter Paterson and Pickford services which were part of British Road Services were doing the finest job of providing fast liner and container traffic that the country had seen. They came from many parts of the country to the centre and to Birmingham, the Midlands and the Leicester areas.
That system was destroyed. The right. hon. Gentleman said that it was never the intention of the last Government to allow the transport holding company to expand on an unlimited basis. Some of my colleagues with me at the time in the trade unions would have been happy to hear him say even that because not only was the company not allowed to expand on an unlimited basis— it was not allowed to expand at all. We were told that commercial freedom would be the driving influence but that British Road Services would not be allowed to compete with the ordinary road hauliers. In fact, the B.R.S. vehicles were sold off under the 1953 Act until at the last stage, the balance could not be sold so the then Government had to form a new section of British Road Services.
It is this kind of thing that makes me feel a little wild at the idea that we had passed to us when we took office a wonderful transport system and that all we had to do was to let it remain as it was. We have been told what a wonderful job the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) did as Minister of Transport. We were told that he is away


at the moment finding out some of the things—and this was quite offensively put to me— that I ought to know. It would have been well, if he wanted to take part in the handling of technology, if he had been here for the debate censuring the Ministry of Technology, or at least had allowed the hon. Member who is deputy to him to have spoken. The Government regard technology as a serious subject. The problem of the modernisation of British industry must be solved.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey is far from having the wonderful record which has been described so many times to us today. We have even been asked why we have not yet done something about stopping more cars from coming into London. We have been asked why we have not done something about increasing public transport. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) said that my right hon. Friend should realise that bus services out of Walthamstow were already so overcrowded that he could not think of driving any more people on to them and would have to be careful about what he did in trying to stop private cars.
This reminded one of another of the projects that the right hon. Member for Wallasey handled so wonderfully. I was a member of the Committee that examined the whole question of London Transport. A proposal was put for a new underground line from Victoria to Walthamstow. At the time it was proposed, the cost would have been £ 17 million but we were told that it could not be afforded. The right hon. Gentleman — who is absent examining what transport ought to do in Tokyo—told me then that if I was suggesting that it should be subsidised I was asking other people to pay for London's transport service.
Now, however, we all accept that this has to be done. Why? Because the situation has reached the stage when the line will cost five times as much as it would have cost then and no one will put it down unless it is subsidised. The Government are, therefore, not merely to assist in paying for the building of the line. We are at the stage when we shall have to pay £4 million a year to subsidise it. I wonder if anyone will put that down as another of the achievements of the right hon. Member for Wallasey.
There has been talk about safety measures. Several hon. Members opposite have spoken of the need for safety measures to deal with fog and to protect people against heavy vehicles. A number of years ago the union of which I was at the time the general secretary made a proposal to the then Minister of Transport for a reduction in the working hours of the drivers. We suggested that in modern circumstances an Act which was passed in 1930 was not the appropriate medium to deal with the regulation of hours of employment for men on these heavy vehicles under present road conditions— particularly as in the meantime the speed of the vehicles had been stepped up from 16 m.p.h. to 20 m.p.h. and then to 30 m.p.h., and subsequently it has risen to 40 m.p.h. We suggested that it would increase productivity, bring about modernisation and allow the vehicles to be more effectively used and the men's time not to be wasted if the hours were cut. But it was not felt to be a proper measure by this wonderful modern Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey. We now have a situation in which men are keeping vehicles out and arguing about schedules of times of employment rather than getting on with the job. When I hear the kind of comments made today about the need for modernisation and productivity, I become a little nauseated, because no one on the benches opposite really means it.
The unions put their views forward on modernisation to the same Minister of Transport. They advanced views about capital reconstruction and about getting the money for the modernisation and mechanisation of the docks. Again they were rejected— by the same Minister of Transport. But today I hear hon. Members say, "We hope that the Government will not neglect that very good Devlin Report but will give effect to it as quickly as they can ". That kind of comment does not mean much to people who sat on the opposite side of the discussion table in dealing with the practical application of the problems which we are discussing.
The problem of London buses is another of the wonderful achievements of the right hon. Member for Wallasey. Some time ago we pointed out to the Minister that the method which was being used for determining the transport needs


of the Metropolis was wrong. It was pointed out that if the number of buses is cut because fewer people are using them—which is inevitable as cars are bought—we shall have such a wide gap in the times between buses that people will look for other means of transport, and thus we shall be in a vicious circle. We suggested that the Government should consider subsidising the service. We, the unions involved in the handling of the affairs of the workers on the London buses, suggested that there should be a subsidy and a recognition that if transport in the great cities were to be effective as a public transport service, then it would need to be a social public service.
I have been interested to hear hon. Members opposite making these suggestions and urging that we should tackle these problems. They say that my right hon. Friend should have done all these things in the year in which he has been in office— all these things which we have said required attention in the last 20 years. I think that you should be ashamed of yourselves for not having done it.

Mr, Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not bring me into this. I have no shame.

Mr, Cousins: I come to some of the comments which have been made by my hon. and right hon. Friends, who have said that every Minister of Transport in the last decade has refused to face up to this problem. That is a fact. I have inevitably been compelled to talk to Ministers of Transport during the past 20 years. A number of them have recognised that we need more roads but they have not had the money available to provide them. When I, in my rather uninitiated and possibly ignorant way, suggested in those days that the Government were obtaining so much money from transport that they ought to provide the roads, I was told that anyone who put this argument could just as well ask for tobacco plantations to be provided, for those who smoke, out of the tax on tobacco. I was told that the tax on motoring had become accepted as a general form of taxation.
If it has been accepted that this is a general taxation system, then the point of

view which was put by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is quite valid. We must look at other methods of financing the construction of roads. My right hon. Friend is not unaware of this. Examples were given of Tokyo and Italy. Others have used these roads. Others have experienced travelling on the new auto-routes in Italy where one paid the toll for five years before the Italians started to build the roads. They put the end pieces down and charged one to go through them, but they did not build the roads until they had the money. That is one way of doing it. I wish that those who are now asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to get on with the job would realise, despite all that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, that they had 13½ years to put their ideas on costing to the electorate, if that was how they seriously felt. But there is some doubt about whether they felt that way, or feel that way at the moment.
Can we get co-ordination? There were some remarks about the men in the N.U.R. Of course, we can get coordination if we set about it in the right way, if we get the understanding that it is designed not to drive men out of employment but to provide security and efficiency of operation and a higher standard of living for them. Of course, we can get it if we recognise that it does not necessarily take three or four handlings if the right containers are provided and there are the right areas of distribution. Of course, we can get it if we have the right depots and what in America has come to be known as pick-a-back loading, which has been successfully operated there for years. But we cannot get it if we set out to destroy the relationship between rail and docks and inland waterways as a deliberate part of policy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that it was obvious that it was in the country's interest that more goods should be sent by rail, and then, on challenge, he withdrew the word "obvious". He said that it was not obvious, but it was preferable. I repeat his original word. It is obvious. If something is not done about it soon, traffic in this country will come to a standstill. Something needs to be done and it is therefore obvious.
If we are not careful, we shall reach the point of not dealing with technology at all. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] But the debate has been on transport and not by my wish. I would have liked to discuss technology. I thought that hon. Members opposite wanted to do so and I thought that they wanted to know what was happening.
Some hon. Members have complained that we are not giving attention to such matters as the reconstruction of the machine-tool industry, and there was a snide opening to the debate asking whether we had withdrawn from the attitude in "Signposts for the Sixties" which threatened the machine-tool industry with public ownership, as though that was the kind of thing to talk about at this time. We need to discuss the modernisation of the machine-tool industry, an industry which is now doing an effective job of work and will do better because it now has the encouragement of a Minister who, in such ways as he can, is aiding its development.
There were two questions about technology.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has made enough interruptions in this debate from a seated position. I hope that he will note what I have said.

Mr. Cousins: The two questions were about the prototype fast reactor. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) did me the courtesy to talk about his view of technology and its local effect in his area. In a debate of this kind it is not possible for me to say when a decision will be taken about the prototype fast reactor and its siting. The view is expressed that it ought to be Chapel Cross. I can only say that that view was pressed upon me when I was in that constituency. There are others pressing similar points. I can say that all the questions concerning the economic and social aspects will be given consideration, and a decision reached as soon as possible.
The other question was on the Flowers Report raised by two hon. Members who asked whether I was being a little anti-Scottish because Edinburgh University wanted a computer and the Flowers Report had made, so they understood, a progressive review about the need for com-

puters, and since that time nothing had been heard of it. This is a matter receiving" active consideration at the moment. This review has now been completed by the University Grants Committee, and the Group's report is a very comprehensive document. It covers a wide range of computers, ranging over the whole field of university requirements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself, and others concerned, appreciate the need for an early decision. It is greatly to be regretted that the knowledge of the requirements was not understood five years ago, and the examination put in train five years ago.
Quite obviously in this kind of debate we are not going in depth into technology. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite, if they want a debate on technology, that today's events have demonstrated that it is well to separate the two subjects of transport and technology. I would be pleased if some of those who made critical comments about my participation in today's debate would give me an opportunity to say to them what I feel about their participation.
In opening the debate on the Queen's Speech the Leader of the Opposition made reference to what he described as: "The same flabby words" about technology "from the same Minister." I was at some trouble to read the views expressed by the Opposition on the subject of technology in their policy statement. One statement read:
This is not a Manifesto dealing with every aspect of our policies, nor do I think this is what people really want at this stage in the nation's affairs.
This is a quite different assumption, and quite different from saying to me, "Give detailed comment about everything you are doing." In order to make quite clear that they did talk about technology a reference was made in two places, to technology. One reference was:
… our policy is designed to produce a far greater security of income in this age of rapid technological change.
The other was, if we get technological change we should be:
… seeking new ways of promoting technological co-operation on a European scale.
This is the only reference to technology— a subject which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for


Marylebone as being vitally important. I have therefore no hesitation in asking my hon. and right hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added: —

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 283.

Division No. 1.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lagden, Godfrey


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lambton, Viscount


Allason, Junes (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd.Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwer)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Baker, W. H. K.
Fraser,Rt,Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longbottom, Charles


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gammans, Lady
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
Gardner, Edward
Loveys, W. H.


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bennett, Sir Frederio (Torquay)
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
MacArthur, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Biffen, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, W. F. M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Maitland, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Box, Donald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grieve, Percy
Maydon, Lt.Crndr. s. L. C.


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyno, J.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper


Buchanan Smith, Alick
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Morgan, W. G.


Buck, Antony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Buxton, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclest'd)
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Gordon
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley


Channon, H. P. G.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chataway, Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Peyton, John


Cooper, A. E.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hopkins, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Pitt, Dame Edith


Corfield, F. v.
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howe, Geoffrey (Beblngton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crawley, Aidan
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Curran, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C.
Ridsdale, Julian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Jopling, Michael
Roots, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsm'd, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Sharpies, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Kilfedder, James A.
Shepherd, William


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, J. L. E. (London, W'minster)


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John




Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, William


Stainton, Keith
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Stanley, Hn. Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Stodart, Anthony
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wise, A. R.


Studholme, Sir Henry
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Summers, Sir Spencer
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Talbot, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walder, David (High Peak)
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wylie, N. R.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Teeling, Sir William
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Temple, John M.
Walters, Dennis



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Webster, David
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Kelley, Richard


Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Clifford


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Ledger, Ron


Atkinson, Norman
Floud, Bernard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham N.)


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Bessell, Peter
Garrow, Alex
Loughlin, Charles


Binns, John
Ginsburg, David
Lubbock, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Anthony
McCann, J.


Boardman, H.
Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James


Boston, Terence
Grey, Charles
MacDermot, Niall


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGuire, Michael


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mclnnes, James


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Bradley, Tom
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hale, Leslie
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McLeavy, Frank


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (West Fife]
MacMillan, Malcolm


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersneld,E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mapp, Charles


Chapman, Donald
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Marsh, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Holman, Percy
Mason, Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Horner, John
Maxwell, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mellish, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.


Crawshaw, Richard
Howie, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Cronin, John
Hoy, James
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Molloy, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, Walter


Dalyell, Tarn
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Darling, George
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Murray, Albert


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Colin
Neal, Harold


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Newens, Stan


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, George (Goole)
Norwood, Christopher


Doig, Peter
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Donnelly, Desmond
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Johnson,James(K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dunnett, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orme, Stanley


English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Ennals, David
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,s.)
Owen, Will


Ensor, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)







Paget, R. T.
Rowland, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Pannell, Rt, Hn, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.


Pargiter, C A.
Short,Rt.Hn.E,N'c'tle-on-Tyne.C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton.N.E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, S. C, (Camberweil, Dulwich)
Wallace, George


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Warbey, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, J.


Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Prentice, R. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilkins, W. A.


Randall, Harry
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rankin, John
Stones, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Redhead, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rees, Merlyn
Stross,SirBarnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Reynolds, G. w.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Richard, Ivor
Swlngler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Symonds, J. B.
Winterbottom, R.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woof, Robert


Robinson, Rt. Hn.K.(St.Pancras, N.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Ziiliacus, K.


Rose, Paul B.
Thornton, Ernest



Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Lawson

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

LONDON TRANSPORT BOARD (BORROWING POWERS)

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I beg to move,
That the London Transport Board (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The Transport Act, 1962, set a limit of £ 200 million to borrowing by the London Transport Board. This limit, incidentally, included the Board's commencing capital debt of £ 162 million. The Act provides that the limit can be raised by Order up to a maximum of £ 270 million. This Order increases the limit to £ 250 million. The Board's investment in 1963 and 1964 totalled £ 38 million. The figure this year is likely to be about £ 23 million. Of this total investment of £ 61 million, some £ 31 million was financed by loans from the Exchequer after taking into account financing from the Board's own resources. On the basis of the present programme, expenditures in 1966 and 1967 are expected to be about the same as for this year. The House will therefore recognise that by about the end of this year the Board will reach the limit of £ 200 million, and the addition of another £ 50 million which this Order seeks should take it on for about another three years at the current rate of capital investment.
I think that this is as far as we should go at the present time. Under the Act we would be permitted to go up to £ 270 million, but I think that it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity at least once in three years of considering the amount made available to the nationalised industries by their borrowing, and that is why I have set the limit in this Order at £ 250 million. The House will probably not wish me at this time of the evening to detail what the different expenditures are likely to be in the next three years, but if questions are asked about it I shall be very happy to reply.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in making his second pronouncement to us. It was a quieter and con-

siderably briefer announcement than the earlier one. It involves a considerable amount of money, and because of that I thank him for his courtesy in explaining it to the House. It is the duty of the House to scrutinise expenditure, particularly when there is a cutting back of a number of fields of public expenditure. The Minister made a number of Delphic utterances during the Erith and Crayford by-election, and when one sees this very considerable increase in borrowing powers one wonders whether there are not some questions of substance that should be asked as our duty to the public as a whole — the taxpayers, the people who have to provide the money.
I would first ask the Minister: does this mean that there is to be no increase in fares, or does it mean that there is to be a fares increase as well? Or what is the fares policy to be? I realise that this is a very difficult problem, and one that London Transport itself would wish to be cleared up as quickly as possible. Those of us who have had the benefit of reading the very fine Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, published three weeks ago, are aware that there are very considerable non-partisan problems involved here, and we should very much like an answer to those questions.
We have to face the fact that in this country there are people who, for genuine reasons, wish to subsidise public transport in order to relieve congestion. This is an honourable and respectable view— though not necessarily one that I share— but one wishes to know the Minister's and the Government's policy on this subject. We hope that he will give us the answers we seek, and that in this case we shall have a smack of firm government, and be able to note the Government's policy on this point.
Various explanations have been given in the Annual Report of the London Transport Board and various breakdowns have been made, but I should like to know how much is for capital expenditure and how much the Minister estimates is for revenue expenditure. I understand that there has been a complete review of the power supply for the Underground railway system, and that it is estimated that this amounts to £ 11½ million for Lots Road and other installations. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that estimate


still stands firm or if there is to be supplementary expenditure for this.
How much of the total is for new rolling stock? We have the benefit of the Central and Piccadilly lines, which have been considerably improved in the last few years, not only in the last 13 months but in the 13 years as well. I should like the Minister to tell us a little more as he so willingly offered more information. There are the new stations at Tower Hill and London Bridge. This is capital expenditure as well as the actual capital expenditure on repayment. I was about to say that the late lamented Minister of Technology has now disappeared into his computer. We have the estimate for the Victoria line, £ 2·5 million in 1963 and £8·5 million last year. Are there to be any delays in the near future over that, although I gather that most of the contracts have been signed?
As well as actual expenditure there are certain savings. London Transport must be given the credit for the fact that it has done a considerable amount in pioneering the automatic train and automatic ticket schemes. These are things which we welcome and if the Minister can give us estimates on these matters we shall be obliged because we are the nation's custodians and it is our duty to inquire into them.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Make it short.

Mr. Webster: I shall not make it short, although the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) seems to take the view that I should do so. He probably wants to go home to bed— perhaps not by public transport, although I do not know about that. It is our duty to inquire into these matters, and I hope that the hon. Member will contribute a little more concretely and substantially to these debates.
I should like to know if there have been transport savings in collaboration with the unions as a result of the Phelps Brown Committee. This was appreciated as a break-through in labour relations. We frequently hear that there is to be increased productivity in this matter through better relations with the trade unions. I believe that is the case. Although it may be early to say, I should

be glad if the Minister can tell us how much saving there can be by this means.
I have mentioned the problem of fares which was gone into by the Select Committee and the London Transport Board. There is a great difficulty here. There is a quick procedure for raising fares and other procedures. It is necessary that we should have an assurance from the Minister that he will press on the Leader of the House that there should be a full debate on the Report by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which was so cheered by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). That is a Report of great substance, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), a former Chairman of that Committee, took a considerable part in the proceedings.
I hope that we can be informed about the findings of the Committee. I understand that it reported that London Transport had been falling down on two obligations. One was to provide an adequate service and the other was the financial obligation. It may be found that the financial obligation is too harsh at present with the ever-rising costs. Again I should be grateful for information if the Minister can give it to us.
We have the estimate from the London Transport Board that if there is no rise in fares and wage increases continue as estimated, there will be during the financial year a loss of £3·25 million, next year £6 million and then a loss of £8 million, and there will be a short-fall over the financial target which, we must remember, was freely agreed between the Board and the Minister, of £33½ million in the five years 1963–67. It would be a hard decision indeed if "Hop on a Bus" became a sixpenny bus ride. The estimate of the amount of custom that London Transport would lose if this should occur and if the two-mile run should become a ninepenny one is frightening. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure us that we can have a debate on this subject and go into it thoroughly.
I return to the subject of the Phelps Brown Committee and the break-through which has been made. This is very encouraging. I am sorry that the Minister of Technology is not here, because not only has he sold a computer to London


Transport, but it is his union which has been involved in these negotiations. The negotiations have not been easy. They have been conducted with much more encouraging good sense on both sides in the last six months. We welcome this.
This week I have ridden on a No. 24 bus. This is a front-opening bus, which again will be labour-saving. One appreciates that there would be difficulties involved in going further than this and getting rid of the conductor altogether. Sir Donald Stokes's remarks to the Institute of Directors were probably a little too optimistic when he suggested that we could get rid of half the conductors in this country. This would be very difficult to do on the short-haul buses. What hopes has the Minister for this? What are the results of the experimental trips on the No. 24 route? Does he consider that there will be a considerable saving of labour costs in the short-term future?
I conclude on what I consider to be a slightly more controversial note. In the first year of this Government's term of office we have had in the public sector a very considerable increase in borrowing powers and public expenditure at the expense of the tax-payer. It is our duty to look into this closely. In the gas industry alone there has been an increase in borrowing powers from £650 million to £1,000 million, possibly to be increased to £1,200 million in five years' time with no recourse to Parliament. This is what worries me. Today we have a new Bill relating to the coal industry's borrowing powers. There is to be an increase in London Transport Board's borrowing powers. I should not be in the slightest degree surprised if there were an increase in the electricity industry's borrowing powers before long, if the recent power cuts are any indication. It therefore appears that in the public sector there is a considerable increase in expenditure and in borrowing powers.
At the same time as there is being an increase in the public sector, the private sector is being squeezed. At one minute the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that the squeeze must be increased, tightened and made more intense. The next minute he says to the Institute of Directors that we need more investment and that profits are a good thing. These are difficult to reconcile when bank over-

drafts are being squeezed and when there is a penal rate of interest. There is, on the one side, the increase in borrowing powers in the public sector. At the same time there is the sharp squeeze in the private sector. It is for these reasons, and for other reasons more of an administrative nature, that I ask the House to consider this Order most seriously before, and if, it allows it to go through.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I should not have intervened in this debate but for an article which appeared in the Daily Mail on the 15th of this month. Let me say, echoing the speech made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), that it probably rests with the Opposition as to what type of debate takes place on a day devoted to the nationalised industries. If it were possible to debate the recent Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with London's transport, it would indeed perform a very useful service. I very much hope that this can be arranged.
The article, to which I take strong exception, refers to the cost of the Victoria line extension. A considerably misleading impression is given in it that the cost of constructing the line will go up by at least another £ 10 million. We all know that when the line was originally agreed upon the estimated cost was about £ 56 million. This was in 1962. There were delays, for which I am not prepared to apportion blame at this stage, and it is now estimated that the line will cost not about £ 65 million as the article states but £ 63· 1 million.
The extra £10 million referred to in the article is not due to an increase in construction costs, as far as can be ascertained at the moment, but because London Transport, very rightly, is making due provision for the inclusion of automatic train control. This is an important point which must be borne in mind. If this automatic control is put into operation it will be a tremendous asset. It shows forward thinking in planning modernisation, as does also the wish of London Transport to introduce automatic ticket collection when that system has been perfected. Such a system would represent a considerable saving and would be generally beneficial.
I make this point purely and simply to correct the false impression that is likely to be given to the public as a result of the publication of that article, which also suggests that instead of being completed in 1969 it is expected that completion of the line will take at least a further two years. This is something quite new. It is not fair to public boards that misleading observation like this should appear in print We who are members of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries have a duty to try to correct this type of thing. Heaven knows, there are plenty of brickbats which can be justifiably thrown at various organisations but on this occasion it is necessary to get the record right.
The Minister has no alternative but to ask the House to approve the present Order, and I sincerely hope that the House will do so without difficulty.

10.34 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: May I begin, slightly out of order, by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) upon his successful chairmanship of the Committee to which he has referred, the Report of which has been of great help to us in considering this Order.
I look forward with interest to the Minister's answers to inquiries from hon. Members about the Victoria line. The extra £ 50 million which the Minister is asking the House to approve will be a large sum of money for the taxpayer to find. It is natural that we here should ask exactly what it is to be spent on and that people outside should want to be assured that they will have value for their money. The very large increases in taxation which the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have put upon the country in the past twelve months make the taxpayer sensitive about the spending of his money. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the need to explain just how the money is to be spent and to convince not only the House of Commons but the country as a whole that it will be well spent and that people will get good value from it.
The great Victoria line project, which was started in the time of the Conservative Government, will bring great benefits to Londoners, and we all look forward to its completion. We are anxious to know how much of this money is to be

spent on it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able also either to confirm or refute the rumours reported in the Press to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West adverted. In particular, can he clear up the doubt about the finishing date?
Heaven knows, the commuters who have to make this daily trip, especially from Victoria Station to offices in the Mayfair area of London, most of them having to walk it, long to have this new underground line. A delay for two years, as is suggested, would be very hard upon them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has good news for us and can confirm the original date for completion, that is, early 1969, with the first part open at the end of 1968.
The Select Committee raised an important point with regard to the tunnelling teams for the Victoria line. How much of this money, if approved, will be used for further underground lines in London? We all realise how small is the prospect of greater travel on the surface now. However difficult the finance may be to find, it will be necessary to construct further underground lines in London. No one doubts that our underground system is the finest in the world, but we shall need more.
All our evidence and the evidence in the great cities of the world is that one secures the best value for money with tunnelling teams if there is a regular phased programme, with a certain amount being done every year. The bringing together and training of a team of a very costly business. Now that a highly expert tunnelling team has been assembled for the Victoria line, the House will want to hear from the Minister that he has planned and provided out of this money for that tunnelling team to go on, after the completion of the Victoria line, to other tunnelling projects on a phased system which will keep them going year after year on new underground schemes. What plans has the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, and do they include— I hope that they do—the proposed Fleet line which would be a tremendous help to London?
Does the Minister intend to spend part of this £50 million to cover the subsidy which he decided this summer to give to the London Transport Board when he directed the Board not to raise its fares, as it had planned to do in order to cover


increased costs? That involves a sum of £ 3· 85 million and the House should be told whether the Minister intends to use some of the £50 million to pay for that subsidy.
The House will have observed that the Select Committee passed a Motion of censure on the right hon. Gentleman for prejudicing the making of its report, but I cannot pursue that now, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the effect of his intervention will cost the Board a sum of money in the coming year and the House should be told whether he intends to use some of the £50 million for the purpose and also what is to happen at the end of the year.
The Minister, when he stepped in to prevent the Board putting up fares, said he was carrying out a complete review of the affairs of London Transport and that a decision would be taken by the end of the year and put into action next year. We should be told what the result of the review is. What is he going to do next? Will the Board be allowed next year to put up fares to cover increased costs? If not, will he provide further subsidies? What is his policy in this connection?
This matter goes far beyond the affairs of London Transport because the money is found by the taxpayers generally. What do the taxpayers in Scotland think about this? How does the right hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents that he is using their money to help keep London fares down? This is a matter of principle.
The policy of the Government is to restrain the magnetism of London. They are restricting office buildings and are giving subsidies to development areas. But here is the right hon. Gentleman asking for money to make London more attractive. It is an odd contradiction. He must have a very special reason to explain to the House.

Mr. Tom Fraser: indicated dissent.

Sir R. Nugent: He shakes his head, but I hope he has a reason. He is asking us to agree to a very large sum of money, which is hard earned and hard given. He takes it in extra taxes and it is up to him to justify what he is to spend it on and why. I ask him for more detail about this money and how it is to be spent. He says

that it will last another three years. What is the programme? Is a rolling programme going forward, particularly on the Underground? What are the plans for buses? He has an obligation to tell us a little more about how this money is to be spent and to give the assurances that it will be well spent.
I am an admirer and a regular user of London Transport and, despite all the criticisms, I regard it as still the finest city transport system in the world. But what is being done to meet its very difficult problems? The right hon. Gentleman must tell us a little more within the limited scope of the debate.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is a member of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, as I am. Is he arguing against the expansion of the London Transport system and the spending of money for that purpose? I gathered that, as a member of the Committee, he was in favour, as I was, of the efficient running of the system and of the spending of money for its proper expansion. Will he tell us where he stands?

Sir R. Nugent: I felt that I was limited to addressing my mind to this specific provision of additional capital for the Board and I did not develop at any length my general view on the Board, although I said at the end that I regard the Board as a highly efficient body and I wish it to have the capital which it requires. That, I think, is sufficient to answer the hon. Member. My criticism of the Minister was directed to his action during the summer in preventing the Board from raising fares, as it intended, and then committing the taxpayers' money by a subsidy of nearly £4 million, which everybody in the country has to pay, in order to keep fares down. We are entitled to ask what is the Minister's policy on this matter and how does he justify using taxpayers' money in this way. What will he do next? Will the Board be allowed to put up fares? I am all in favour of the Board, which I think does a very fine job. I want it to go ahead and to get modernised, but I want the Minister to justify what he is asking from the House.

10.47 p.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent)


I was not a member of the Select Committee. The Minister is asking for authority to raise by £ 50 million the borrowing powers of the London Transport Board, and I make it clear that I shall require a good deal more conviction than I have at the moment that it is wise and prudent for us to advance a sum of money for purposes not yet specified to an organisation which has been under complaint and daily criticism for many years for certain aspects of its services.
The Select Committee's Report on London Transport turned out to be one of the most critical documents we have seen for a long time, and that lends force to my argument that, as the Select Committee thought that there was so much which could be improved and so much which was going wrong with the affairs of London Transport, surely it is sensible for us to probe this a little more deeply before we blithely agree to the Board borrowing another £50 million to go on as it has gone on in the past.
The Economist, normally a fairly sober and responsible organ of opinion, referred to this report—which I have in my hand —in these terms:
The tumbling ant heap that goes with the name of the Ministry of Transport and the Minister who sits atop it thoroughly deserve all the controlled abuse they got this week for their handling of the affairs of London Transport.
This is the Board and there is the Minister who now come before us and pass round the hat, saying,"For my good purposes I require another £ 50 million". Maybe he does, but as a regular user of the services of the Board and a reader of the criticism which the Select Committee put forward, I want much more satisfactory assurances that the money will be properly and wisely spent.
What seems to have infuriated the Select Committee was this business of paying lip-service to London Transport's freedom to run its own business in a commercial way while at the same time arbitrarily overriding the management when it suits the Minister's book to do so. It is extremely difficult for a public corporation to try to do two things— to run its affairs on a commercial basis, as it is required, and, secondly, to be subject to the sudden directions of a Minister who decides for his own reasons, good, bad or indifferent, or just political, that certain things cannot be allowed to go on.
Earlier this year, we had the Minister's intervention to prevent a rise in fares. This gives rise to the query whether some of the money proposed to be borrowed under these arrangements is to be used to subsidise that arrangement. There is no doubt that originally it was thought to be quite "inconceivable"—a word used by a witness giving evidence to the Select Committee—that the Minister
would bring pressure to bear on a chairman to restrain him from increasing tariffs if those increases were commercially necessary".
What was inconceivable at that time became fact very soon afterwards when, as we know, the Minister successfully pressed his advice on the chairman of the Board to do just that.
From all this it seems that the Select Committee was thoroughly dissatisfied with the way in which this show was being run, and that is why I shall require more solid assurances about how the money is to be spent before we vote it. In a final crack at the Minister—because that is what it amounts to and we have already heard how something very close to a motion of censure was passed by the Select Committee on the right hon. Gentleman—the Committee said in its conclusion in paragraph 76:
Your Committee conclude that it would be in the best interests on the Board if the Ministry restrained their non-statutory concern in the affairs of the Board 
That is a pretty good slap in the face. I do not know whether the Minister deserves all the harsh things which his colleagues in the House were saying and writing about him, but I am certain that those of us who were not members of the Committee will want to know whether those comments were justified before we agree to lending all this additional money.
The Minister said quite fairly that we would not expect him to categorise every single thing on which the money was to be spent. Of course that is so, but there are one or two things in the general conclusions of the Committee which he should tell us about. For instance, in paragraph 583 it is said:
In conjunction with British Railways, the Board have drawn up plans for three new underground railway lines. The Ministry have not yet thought it advisable for those plans to be published. But Your Committee think that they are now defined clearly enough to warrant their publication and so indicate to the travelling public the measures being proposed to meet its needs.
What could be fairer than that?
Many times in the House I have advocated an extension of the London Underground system, particularly the Victoria line. By some curious coincidence, my recommendations have invariably suggested that it should be extended into my constituency. It is an admirable suggestion, but the public ought to know where these three new underground lines are to run. It could make a tremendous difference to the daily battle of thousands of commuters if they felt that at the end of the road there was some hope of an additional tube service being provided for them.
In paragraph 584 the Select Committee says:
The Board also have plans for automatic train operation and automated ticket control which promise significant economies. In both these fields London Transport have been pioneers.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us something about automatic train control. Perhaps that would include the driverless trains on which I understand experiments are taking place— so I was told in answer to Questions. Earlier today we had a debate about all the plans for the co-ordination of transport and all the rest of it and it was a great pity that we did not then hear from the Minister much more about how he proposes to apply these great new technological advances to his task. We heard so much in the debate about the sterile old business of branch lines and all that, the closure or non-closure of which will certainly not make transport fully viable. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about this automated train. Paragraph 586 makes the comment:
One of these is the one-man operated ' standee bus, carrying 80 passengers at a flat rate fare over distances of up to four miles. There has been a six or seven year delay in introducing one-man buses in the centre of London and Your Committee consider it is regrettable that this useful relief of the rush hour has been held up for so long.
So do I, and I think that it is about time that we heard where these plans have got to and when we must expect them to be carried out.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the quotation he has read was a condemnation of his Minister

of Transport, and not of my right hon. Friend?

Sir R. Thompson: No, Sir, I do not entirely accept that. What the paragraph says is that the Committee is blaming the London Transport Board and its management. I do not know whether it is right in that, but it is not blaming the Minister, it is blaming the operating concern which should have brought this in and which had the plans and did not execute them.
The whole of this Report is highly critical of London Transport. I do not know to what extent that criticism is justified, but there is a tremendous amount of it, and it is clearly the view of the Committee that a management shake-up is pretty desirable. If we are being asked to advance another £ 50 million I think that we should have satisfactory answers as to how it is proposed to reorganise the administration of this concern, and also the main heads of expenditure which the Minister hopes to finance by means of this additional money, which, if wisely chosen, will mean a better deal for London commuters in the future.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I fully agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), particularly on the subject of the Underground. I hope the Minister will tell us a little more about what is going on so far as this is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said that we have the finest underground system in the world. In my view this is far too complacent. I believe that Paris has a better system than this country. If one looks at the map one will see that per square mile Paris has four more lines than London—

Mr. Ernest Perry: Four times as many.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Four times as many. I am obliged. In other words the underground system of Paris is four times as intense as that of London. When I was a member of the Western European Union I took advantage, on many occasions, of travelling by underground. There is a station nearly every quarter of a mile. There are lines running north and south and east and west, and it is far easier to get an underground train in Paris. I want the Minister to look at this matter.
One essential link is that mentioned in the Select Committee's Report, from Waterloo to Aldwych. If one stands on Waterloo on a wet and windy morning, it is pathetic to see the crowd of thousands of commuters trying to cross from Waterloo to Aldwych and up to Hol-born. We need this underground link. The Select Committee said the Board claim the problem of this line is one of timing. I think that this is a pathetic excuse. The Committee says:
there are practical reasons for doing it straight away, yet it may be better to leave it over until it is essential, perhaps in 15 or 20 years' time.
It is absolutely essential to have this additional line now.
I should have thought that, in addition to the routes mentioned, it would be an advantage to have an underground running under the King's Road up from Chelsea up to Sloane Square, taking the weight of traffic off the No. 11 bus. A former chairman of London Transport told me, when the Victoria line was being discussed,"We should have to add one-eighth of a penny to the fares to pay for the line." I believe that the crowds of people waiting 15, 20 or 30 minutes for a bus in London would gladly pay one-eighth of a penny extra to get more of these lines than they have at the moment.

Mr. Popplewell: In fairness, in view of the statement he is making, the hon. Member ought to refer to paragraph 582 of the Report, from which he will learn that London Transport was pressing for the Victoria tube extension in 1955 and it was not until 1962 that it received authority to go ahead. It is not, therefore, accurate to criticise London Transport: the responsibility rested fairly and squarely on the Minister of Transport of the day, who was one of his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Of course, we are all aware that London Transport was pressing for the Victoria tube: so were many hon. Members. The difficulty at that time was raising the finance for it.
What I am saying is that it is a very backward-looking view of London Transport to say that the much needed extension from Waterloo to Aldwych will not be needed for 15 or 20 years. Then there is the delay of six or seven years

in the introduction of "standee" buses. London Transport say that they are experimenting: but what are they waiting for? We know that these buses are wanted. They are essential in London. Double-decker buses make their own congestion: it takes 40 seconds or a minute to get on or off. I should like to see in London what they have all over the world—buses with two doors, one for the passengers to get on and one for them to get off, with the conductor standing by the exit door to collect the fares.
One of London Transport's troubles has been its labour relations. As the Select Committee says, quite rightly, the personnel department of London Transport could be greatly strengthened in order to improve this. Again, London Transport has been rightly criticised for not developing enough parking spaces for motor cars at outlying stations like Osterley and other stations in the West of London. Why does it have to be left to local councils like my own borough of Richmond to develop parking spaces? Why should not London Transport do it?
They talk about their automatic ticket machines, but one cannot get change for sixpence when one wants a 4d. ticket. People trying to get a ticket to Victoria from Westminster and other short distances have to go to the booking clerk if they have sixpence because they cannot get change from the machine. London Transport say that they are waiting for decimal coinage: they will have to wait until the heavens fall for that.
I believe my constituents are right, and, as a Londoner, I think I am right to say that we have had years of frustration and delay from London Transport. As Londoners, we ought to insist now that they go ahead with a big programme of underground transport to take the weight of traffic and congestion off the streets. I hope the Minister will tell us that he is in favour of that and that much of this £ 50 million will be devoted to that purpose.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: As a Member for a Scottish constituency who is not a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I may be thought something of an intruder involving myself in this discussion. But I feel reassured by the comments of my


right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). It is precisely. for the reasons which he mentioned in his intervention that I felt that there was a case for putting some questions to the Minister on behalf of people who are not generally represented here in constituencies in Scotland.
Like my right hon. Friend, I feel very concerned about the way in which the Ministry appears to be approaching the financial responsibilities of the London Transport Board. We have already had several references to the Minister's decision to intervene to prevent a fares increase this summer and to guarantee the Board a £ 4 million subsidy.
I would like to think that we cannot assume, but I cannot help wondering whether we should not, that the additional borrowing powers which the Minister is requesting for the Board under the Order will go the same way. To my mind, it is not simply a parochial issue of objections from Scotland on the part of Scots being expected to pay through the Exchequer for services which they seldom, if ever, use.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the passengers of British Railways in north-east Scotland, particularly Banffshire, pay for the services that they get?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the right hon. Gentleman would mind waiting until I come to my point, he will see that that is precisely the argument I am not making. If I can attract the right hon. Gentleman's attention for one moment, my precise point is that I am not concerned with the fact that because the Government step in to exonerate the London Transport Board from the normal considerations of good housekeeping, taxpayers in Scotland are required to pay for services that they seldom, if ever, use. My point is that these activities by the Government in subsidising the fares of the London Transport Board act in direct contradiction of all the policies of regional development and regional planning to which the Government have so frequently paid lip service.
Every time that the Government step in, as I suspect they are doing under the terms of the Order, to exonerate the

inhabitants of the South-East or the Midlands from the consequences of overcrowding and over-employment and the drift to the South, from the economic consequences and the burden in costs on the whole infra-structure, including transport, they are in fact encouraging that drift to the south of the country which they spend a certain amount of their time saying that they are trying to reverse.
About the most significant and meaningful contribution to regional development made by the Government to date has been the £ 4 million subsidy to the London Transport Board, and, as far as most of us in Scotland are concerned, that is regional development in reverse.
It is sometimes argued that increasing the fares of the London Transport Board might be self-defeating because it would drive the passengers away. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to one paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee, because it seems to me to be highly significant. In paragraph 552, the Select Committee is referring to the evidence of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and the hon. Gentleman is quoted as accepting that
quite sizeable ' increases in fares were needed if the Board were even to approach their financial objective and this must be expected to cause ' quite startling reductions in the amount of traffic '.But "—
and this is the comment of the Select Committee—
London Transport were nowhere near the point at which the loss of traffic would entirely offset increased fares, nor had they ever indicated a point at which it would do so.
This is the crux of the matter. There is no evidence that the Board has reached, or even approached, the point at which increases in fares would be self-defeating.
As I say, I suspect that this Order will give the Minister further grounds for future interventions. I suspect that his interventions so far have been designed with nothing more or less than a political objective in mind, and that is an objective of which, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest that, as a Scotsman representing a Scots constituency, he should be ashamed.
I was a great admirer of the Minister's predecessor in the previous Administration, but I was quite pleased to see a Scotsman chosen for this job. I begin to


think that it would be a very good thing if we had another Englishman taking the right hon. Gentleman's place.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Some of my hon. Friends and I have for several years been urging that the London Transport management needs a shake-up. We believe that it is our job, particularly those of us from the London area, to make these cries on behalf of the commuting public because, by and large, the person travelling in the London area has a pretty raw deal. This is largely due to overcrowding, but we believe that unless we continue to keep up pressure on this point the Minister of Transport and all associated with the management of London Transport will not do their job properly. We believe that we have to fight the case of the commuter. Incidentally, we are appalled this evening not to see any member of the Liberal Party present; the Liberal Members always profess to be on the side of the commuter, but they are not taking part in this debate.
There may be a case for powers to borrow the extra £ 50 million, but I do not think we have so far had an adequate explanation and I hope that we shall hear more from the Minister on the subject. I think that if this Order goes through an extra gesture is needed from London Transport to show that it is trying to make itself more efficient and trying to be more profitable.
I was very interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster)— whom we are very pleased to see on the Front Bench— refer to the Phelps Brown Committee. For my sins, I gave evidence— as the only person who was not a technical witness— before that Committee on behalf of my constituents, and put forward ideas as to how London Transport could be improved. We had a very courteous reception and there were promises that there would be some interesting changes. So far, however, I cannot see any good points that have come from that Committee's Report —certainly none that have been initiated. We had a considerable fares increase not long after the Report was published. But I hope that some other things will shortly stem from the work of that Committee.
I agree that we must have an answer soon on whether or not we are to have

a fares increase or an increase in subsidy for London Transport. There is a danger of an element of both creeping in unless we are very careful. I know that many London commuters are facing with apprehension any idea that there should be a further increase in tube or bus fares. That would be a very considerable inflationary element and knock the policy of the Economic Secretary, because it would immediately cause wage demands from the people in the London area.
The management of London Transport may be hamstrung by the brake which the Ministry of Transport has on it, but London Transport itself seems to be a rather complacent body. It always trots out the same stock answer when one writes on behalf of constituents. Nearly every time, the answer is: "We are very short of staff"— that is admitted— or "The roads are congested and we cannot keep our buses up to schedule." Services are frequently cancelled and great inconvenience is caused to many people who have to come to the centre of London or travel around in the suburbs. As a result, more and more become frustrated with London Transport and turn to cars for transport. That they find cheaper, particularly if they share with others. I have known of cases of young men and women who have travelled to work in London but, because they were consistently late for work, have had to leave their homes and find accommodation nearer to the centre. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I have had more letters on the subject of London Transport in the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament than I have had on any other subject. The time is rapidly coming when the management of London Transport must show more initiative in trying to justify the extra subsidies which we vote. London Transport says that one of the most effective answers would be to clear private cars from the main streets of London and to give the buses a free run. That probably would help London Transport, but there would be complete chaos unless London Transport were revitalised and there were more buses with better schedules and more people recruited to run them.
I do not believe that all the problem is due to traffic jams. There is a breakdown somewhere in management-worker


relations. In my constituency the No. 71 bus route is probably the worst in the world. It is losing passengers every day because it does not run to schedule and various services are knocked out. Only a stone's throw from this Chamber buses run on the No. 11 route. It is called the "banana service" because buses so often run in bunches. This is a disgrace. I have counted no fewer than 12 buses on that route at the stop in Whitehall all at one time. No one can tell me that that is due entirely to traffic jams. More discipline is needed in the managerial staff and the unions concerned in operating the service.
We want to see a better attitude adopted by all concerned in London Transport. Large numbers in the service try within the bounds of the system to do a good job, but although they try extremely hard they are frustrated. The inspectors need greater power. Some of them are afraid to say much to the crews who nominally come under their jurisdiction. One inspector told me that the crews regard the inspectors as rather a joke. There is a fantastic state of affairs. We must have more efficient working. We must have single-decker buses, the" standee" buses. We have been waiting some years for them. We should also consider the possibility of cheaper off-peak fares for old-age pensioners. At the moment London Transport is losing a great deal of revenue because old people cannot afford the fares for short journeys in the suburbs in constituencies such as mine. If there were a reduced fare system, revenue could be obtained in the off-peak periods and a very humane and sensible social service would be provided. There is a good case for the new ticket system to come into operation on the tubes. There is far too much bilking on the tubes at present. I do not blame London Transport, but there is a big outlet of revenue as a result.
This short debate will have done some good if it has pinpointed the case for further reforms of London Transport and more action on its part to justify the sums of money we vote for the service.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) has inter-

vened in this debate, quite naturally, from a constituency point of view and I hope that his speech will do him some good in his constituency. I am sure that was the intention of his speech.
I intervene for a very practical reason, that I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and I support everything that is in the Report. It is a valuable document and I hope the House and the Minister will take it very seriously indeed. Indeed, I hope that later on—and I am sure the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) will agree—some time will be found in the House for a really extended debate on the Report, for this is very necessary.
I think that a reasonable conclusion that one can draw from the Report, to put it shortly, is that the London Passenger Transport Board is a fine organisation and it has a great tradition, but the Select Committee felt that with the passing of the years it had become unduly complacent. I think that is a perfectly fair summary of our Report, particularly in the matter of the neglect of further underground development, the failure to look realistically at new methods of bus transport and, in short, the inability to provide a proper or a full service and pay its way.
It seems to me that these are all legitimate criticisms, and anything which has been said on the other side of the House to this effect I, as a member of the Select Committee, endorse. But this is no reason for not giving the Board extra borrowing powers. The efficiency of the industry of our country to a great extent depends on the efficiency of our basic industries, and transport is obviously a basic industry. If we are to have efficiency in industry this means extensive capital development.
This seemed to be the weakness of the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). He seemed to be against the expansion of this nationalised transport service precisely because it is a nationalised service. This does not make any kind of logic or sense. His party was in power for a considerable time. They did not denationalise transport, and I do not blame them. It was an accomplished fact and in any case it was an excellent thing to have transport


nationalised. In those circumstances, to say that because an industry is nationalised we must be extremely grudging about its capital development is not realistic. It is an impossible position—

Mr. Webster: I said that it was our duty as a House to scrutinise any additional expenditure. Then I pointed out that there was a considerable disparity between the new borrowing powers given to the gas industry, this industry and possibly another nationalised industry at the same time as there was a considerable restriction in the private sector, and this imbalance should be looked at with great attention.

Mr. Palmer: I take the point, but what the country needs is a general effective expansion of the whole of our industry, whether it is privately or publicly owned. It does not make any sense to pay this ridiculous game of saying that simply because this or that is a nationalised industry we must not expand it. We should consider the question of transport expansion on its merits and, whatever may be said about the Report of the Select Committee— and a great deal can be said about it— certainly the Select Committee came to one conclusion, namely, that we need to expand and improve the organisation of London Transport. This means more money and extra borrowing facilities, and it is for this reason that I suggest that the House should give the Minister and the London Passenger Transport Board the powers that are sought tonight without too much argument.

11.25 p.m

Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is making very heavy weather of what seems to be a perfectly fair point from this side of the House. We are not disputing that London Transport needs expansion. I do not suppose that anybody would say that it does not need more money. We are simply asking that when the Board's borrowing powers are extended it is reasonable to ask what sort of policy it will pursue in the future. It is legitimate on that kind of occasion to explore the Minister's mind and I shall be surprised if the Minister, in replying to the debate, takes any exception to the kind of questions which we are putting. I think that he will agree that they are

fair questions. We have the right to ask them, and whilst we cannot expect detailed replies we are entitled to have some idea of the lines along which his mind is moving.
The Select Committee's Report is, as everyone will agree, a valuable document, and not only the Report but the Minutes of Evidence. I read them with fascination. I was fascinated that members of the Committee had before them the moguls of London Transport and grilled them like so many kippers on top of an oven. I congratulate the hon. Members concerned— I am sure that they are far too modest to congratulate themselves in this debate—on the skill and persistence with which they questioned representatives of London Transport about the way in which it is run.
There is a vast amount of information available in the Report. There is no need now for anyone to ask for a public inquiry. Here is the inquiry. In parentheses, I wish that the Minister would find some method of publishing this document for something less than the £ 2 2s. 6d. asked by the Stationery Office, which means that it is completely outside the range of most people who use London Transport. It should be possible for the Ministry to give Londoners the benefit of, if not a complete cheap edition, then at least an abbreviated one giving the main points of questions and the evidence given by key witnesses of London Transport. I assure the Minister that if he could produce it at a price which the ordinary Londoner could afford it would be read by large numbers. This volume contains, somewhere or other, every question that the user of London Transport usually asks— and usually asks his Member of Parliament.
I am not saying that London Transport is a morass of inefficiency and incompetence. Like every other London Member, I have spent a great deal of my time transmitting adjectives to London Transport on behalf of my constituents. They are always writing to me to complain about it, and I have the finest collection of adjectives ever compiled by a Member of Parliament about the buses that run through West Middlesex. I recognise that a case can be made against London Transport, but I am not concerned now with passing on adjectives to the Minister.
I want to draw attention to the conclusions which can be fairly drawn from the Committee's Report and also the latest Annual Report of London Transport. When one examines what London Transport says about itself, in addition to what the Select Committee found out about it, one can see that it has reached a point of crisis, and I do not think that that word is being used rhetorically or in exaggeration. Ever since 1955 there has been, for 10 years, a continuance process of degeneration in London Transport. That process of degeneration is displayed no matter what yardstick one uses. Over those 10 years, the fares have gone up, to a total of £ 37½ million. They went up every year except this year.

Mr. Popplewell: Costs have gone up, too. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the evidence given to the Select Committee, he will find the facts regarding the rise in costs which compelled the increases in fares.

Mr. Curran: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall come to that. I am taking these points seriatim. Fares have gone up. Costs have gone up. Wages have gone up. Everything has gone up, except the number of people using London Transport's services.

Mr. J. T. Price: The number of cars has gone up. The reduced demand for public transport is a reflection of the greater number of private vehicles.

Mr. Curran: With all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I can only reply that twice two is four. I know that, and so does everyone else. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of people using London Transport. Over the decade, the Board has lost about one-third of its passengers, and the rate of loss last year— this is the Board's figure, and it is referred to in the Report of the Select Committee, I think— was considerably more acute than in the previous years since 1955. So there is an accelerating loss of passengers.
There is no mystery about it. We have had growing affluence in this country, as hon. Members opposite will enthusiastically agree, and the natural result is a shift from public to private transport. This is one of the facts of affluence wherever it takes place. As soon as the

standard of living rises above a certain level, people want to contract out of public transport and switch to private transport. It has happened in London just as it has in all the other affluent countries of the world. But the process in the London area has been accelerated by the rising cost of using London Transport's services, by the growing discomfort of using them, and by the growing doubt about whether one can rely on the buses.
This aspect of the bus problem is a consequence of full employment and affluence. Just as affluence makes people move from public to private transport, it also makes it harder for London Transport to recruit and keep employees. Shift work and weekend work is unpopular. In a seller's market for labour, such as there is in London, people can pick and choose, and they will not choose, if they can help it, jobs which involve shift and weekend work. I do not think that any particular criticism can be levelled at London Transport for not being able to recruit enough people to run the buses. That fact is simply a reflection of the kind of society in which we live, and, on the whole, it seems to me to be a good society.
I do not expect the Minister to produce a magic cure for these ills out of a hat. London Transport's problems will not be solved easily. To some extent, they cannot be solved at all, and we shall have to learn to live with some of them. But will he address his mind to certain steps which, though they would not solve the problems, would help to mitigate their effect?
In its Annual Report, London Transport says that it finds it difficult to get enough bus drivers and conductors because of the difficulty of finding houses for them. It points out that there are considerable regional differences in the Greater London area in the availability of housing. For example, houses are easier to get in south and east London than in north and north-west. In the garages and depots of south and east London, the Report says, there is a shortfall of workers of about 5 per cent. whereas in north and north-west London the figure is about 15 per cent.
This concerns me, and I will not disguise the fact that I have a constituency interest. My constituency is in northwest London and is, therefore, in the


region where the deficiency in the number of bus crews is about 15 per cent. compared with the 5 per cent. in south and east London. Is it practicable for the Minister to provide any sort of help in the provision of houses for bus workers in the areas where they are most in demand? Has he approached the G.L.C. or the borough councils about it? Those likely to join London Transport are more likely to go to places where there is more housing available. While providing houses in north and north-west London would not solve the problem, it would help mitigate it.
What is the Government's view of staggering of hours? Twice a day there is a tidal wave in and out of London, when the transport services are jammed to overflowing, but in between they are largely empty. It would make the running of the services much easier and much more comfortable if hours were staggered.
But to talk about staggering of hours is easy: to get it done is not. When one staggers hours one is compelling a lot of people to live in a world different from that of their neighbours. They have to go to work and return at different times; they are unable to watch the same television programmes as their friends.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Just like us.

Mr. Curran: Yes, just like us. People like to live more or less in the same time rhythm as their neighbours, and in a full employment society where people can pick and choose their jobs more easily they will not willingly accept staggering.
It is not sufficient for the Government to set up committees to see whether they can promote staggering. They must go further. The Government constitutes the biggest single employer in the country and while they are urging other employers to stagger hours they can do something themselves. Have the Government considered introducing staggered hours for Government workers in Greater London? How far have they gone and how far do they intend to go? The further they go the more likely they are to create a pattern which other employers will follow. I am not suggesting that this will solve the traffic problem, but it will mitigate it to a measurable degree.
I hope the Minister agrees—certainly after listening to the debate if he did not know it before—that we who represent the constituents of Greater London also represent a large volume of grievances about the performance of London Transport. I ask him not merely to give me a sympathetic hearing, which I am sure he will do, but to tell me the suggestions which he can put before us for mitigating the conditions which create these grievances. It was because I wanted to put these suggestions before him and to see how his mind reacted to them that I intervened in the debate.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I hope that my hon. Friends who represent Greater London constituencies will forgive me if I do not follow them into the detailed examination of London Transport, although I could talk about the subject at great length.
I speak from the point of view of an ordinary Member of Parliament who is sent here to examine the expenditure of public money. In all the Orders which I have seen in all the years that I have been here, I have never seen one quite as extraordinary as this nor have I heard one put forward with quite such an irresponsible explanation. Not a single word of explanation has been given by the Minister of what the money is to be spent on, except that it is to be spent on the capital needs of London Transport.
I see from the Explanatory Note that the borrowing powers of London Transport were limited to £200 million in 1962, and yet the Minister tonight, only three years later, asks for these borrowing powers to be extended by £50 million— a 25 per cent. increase in three years. It has been said that we have the finest transport system in the world. That may well be so. I believe that it is. It has been produced out of the capital expenditure of £ 200 million. But in the next three years, we are told, without any word of explanation, capital expenditure on the system is to be increased by 25 per cent. or £50 million. It is a vast sum of money. If the people of Greater London, the people who will benefit, had to supply the money it would be £5 for each man, woman and child in Greater London. But it is the people not of Greater London but of the United Kingdom who have to find the money.


and the Minister is asking for the expenditure of £1 for each man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, whether they will benefit from this expenditure or not. It is an extraordinary request, especially as we have not heard a word of explanation of what the money is to be spent on.
What advantage will accrue to the nation and to Greater London from this expenditure? We have been told that we shall get the Victoria line, but we knew about that three years ago when the limit was fixed at £ 200 million. How much of the extra £ 50 million will be spent on that? The only other suggestion concerned automatic train control. That may be very desirable, but will it be a case of technology for the sake of technology or will there be an actual saving, and if so, how much?
On what else will this £ 50 million be spent? My constituents and those of the Minister want to know what advantage they will get from this extraordinary expenditure and where this £ 50 million fits into the much vaunted National Plan? We had to pay £ 2 15s., I believe, for this extraordinary document, the National Plan, which shows how the national resources are to be spent. Where does this sum of £50 million fit into that Plan? If £ 50 million is to be spent in Greater London, what is to be spent in the rest of the country?
One of the Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture is here. Can he explain how this £ 50 million is to be counterbalanced by expenditure on rural bus services, of vital importance in the part of the country which I represent? The Minister of Transport has given permission for the closing of a vital railway line in my constituency because, he says, it will lose money, although he cannot say how much. There is no question of £ 4 million or even £4 subsidy for that line. I hope that the Minister will tell me what is to be spent in my constituency and his to counterbalance this £ 50 million.
Apart from yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is not a Member of the Liberal Party present. I am surprised, because the Liberal Party swept the board in Scotland at the General Election. so it told us, on the issue of trans-

port in the rural areas of Scotland. But not one Liberal hon. Member is sufficiently interested to be here to find out what is to be spent in Scotland on transport. What surprised me even more is that not one Scottish Minister is here. Where are the Scottish Ministers to explain to the House what is to be spent in Scotland to correspond with this £ 50 million which is to be spent in London, not in the course of many years, but in the next three years? My constituents are entitled to know.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hendry: In addition to saying "Hear, hear," I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer my questions. After all, we have heard a great deal about regional development, but most of the regional development seems to be taking place in London. The Minister of Transport, who represents a Scottish constituency, must explain that and I hope that he will say what is to be spent on other parts of the country.
I could speak at great length in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite sitting below the Gangway may not have noticed that the Patronage Secretary stuck his nose into the Chamber a little while ago and I have the idea that if I were to carry on speaking at much greater length he would take a very poor view of it. Having put those questions specifically to the Minister, I shall sit down, asking him to answer them.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Tom Fraser: When I came to the House today, I thought that we were to have a debate on transport between half-past three and ten o'clock. Hon. Members who tonight have discussed transport in London rather than the Borrowing Powers Order will not think it impertinent of me to observe that their presence was not conspicuous in the earlier debate when I made a speech on this subject.
I have been pressed by hon. Members opposite to justify these further borrowing powers which are to be given to London Transport Board on top of additional borrowing powers to be given to the Gas Board, the Electricity Board, the National Coal Board and other public enterprise undertakings which, it is said, are always


getting more and more of the taxpayers' money for public investment. They had not really got this criticism out when they were demanding that there be further capital investment for exactly the same people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) was terribly concerned about this vast sum of £ 50 million of additional borrowing, yet in the same breath he asked, "When are we going to get these additional lines, after the Victoria line, and how many are we going to get out of £50 million?" Hon. Members had better make up their minds. Do they think that London Transport should be developed, that additional lines should be built, that the buses should be replaced with new buses, that the rolling stock in the tubes should be replaced and improved, that the stations should be improved, that capital investment should be encouraged? The answer is yes; but should the Board be allowed to borrow the money from the only source open to them, namely the Government, the answer is no — it shculd do the job, but it should not get the money.

Sir R. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman has been asking a great many questions of the Opposition. Could he now answer some of the questions that have been put to him?

Mr. Fraser: I was about to do that. The right hon. Gentleman himself asked me to answer a number of questions before I told him what the money was going to be spent on. The right hon. Gentleman asked that I should explain my having intervened some months ago to persuade the London Transport Board not to increase fares. He went on to say that this seemed to be quite the opposite to the regional policies which the Government were commonly believed to advocate. I thought, however, that in the statement I made to the House, and in Answers I have given in the House at Question Time, and in the speech I made earlier today, that I had made it abundantly clear that I did what I did some months ago because I believed, and the London Transport Board believed, that a further fares increase would have led to more people leaving public transport. As has been said in many speeches tonight, the passenger-carrying of London Transport has been going down and down

and more and more people have been turning to personal transport. The streets have become more and more congested, the buses have taken longer and longer to reach their destinations and have become increasingly and progressively unreliable. The vicious circle goes on: as the buses become increasingly and progressively unreliable, then more people leave the buses to take to personal transport. I have explained that I did what I did because I believed that London was threatened by total strangulation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Fraser: I believed that it was necessary, and highly desirable, that I should invite the traffic authority for London, the Greater London Council, and the London Transport Board, to sit down together, and to do it quickly, to see whether they could find some traffic management remedies to apply in London, which would be likely to enable the London Transport Board to provide a better service for their customers. I asked the G.L.C. and the L.T.B. to let me have the Report by the middle of October. They were good enough to do that, so I have had the Report for nearly a month, and I have been considering it in consultation with other right hon. Friends of mine who are as deeply involved in this as I am. I think that all hon. Members will understand that.
So we have to make up our minds: we have to have a decision about the future and about whether there will be a further subsidy to London Transport to keep down the fares. It is now clear, and was clear to the Select Committee, that the Board can no longer maintain viability in its normal operations. Under the Act of 1962, they were expected to make a surplus of £ 4 million a year, and they made a surplus of £ 4 million for the first two years combined. They will make no surplus this year: instead, as has been recognised tonight, they will make a loss which will not be made good by the £ 3· 85 million subsidy which I promised them some time ago. Even after that has been paid there will still be a deficit this year.
There is no possibility of a fares increase being applied which would give the Board an income to meet its costs. This is the unhappy position of the Board


at the moment. I do not feel that I am in any way to blame for this. I am not even sure that I would blame my predecessor or anybody else. I have found that the public passenger transport services in most of the big cities of the world are in exactly the same position. It is remarkable that London has been able to carry on for so long without running into these difficulties.
However, we must try to do our best to see that London is not a burden on taxpayers generally. In this connection, because of the chiding about taxpayers in other parts of the country having to subsidise the London commuter, I would point out that the British Railways Board carry commuters into most of this country's cities, including London. I believe that they just about break even with the commuter services in London, but they lose £ 20 million a year carrying commuters into other cities. They make a loss of £ 20 million each year in commuter-carrying, but here in London they just about break even, as does the London Transport Board with the Underground railways. The buses used to be the money makers, but the position is now changed and it is the buses which make the deficit.
I have been asked many times whether the £ 3· 85 million subsidy which I promised is included in this £ 50 million additional borrowing. The answer is no. The former figure is a subsidy: it is money which the Government said they would give to the Board to compensate them for the loss of revenue they suffered from our refusal to allow them to raise fares. But the £ 50 million is money which is to be borrowed and it has nothing to do with the decision which I took earlier in the year. If I had let the fares go up earlier in the year, I should have had to come to the House to ask for exactly the same sum of money.
If, by some mischance, the electors had, in October last year, returned the party opposite to Government once again, some other hon. Member as Minister of Transport from the Tory benches would have been asking for this Order. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. Hendry), I gave some explanation, and I showed that the Act of 1962 provided for £ 200 million. £ 162 million of that was the commencing

debt that the Board took over, and in the intervening period it has virtually eaten up the rest of the £200 million. I have said that the borrowings that it will require in the next three years will be about £ 50 million, and that is why I am asking for £50 million now.
The largest item in the Board's programme is the Victoria Line, as has been well recognised. As the House knows, construction began in 1962, and there has been some speculation tonight as to when the line will be opened. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) quoted a Press report to which he took exception, and I have great sympathy with him in the views which he expressed about it. The Board expects the northern section to be opened towards the end of 1968, and the whole line in the course of 1969. That is the timetable which the London Transport Board tell me that it expects to be able to keep. The total construction cost will be nearly £ 60 million, including the cost of reconstruction for interchange stations.
The line will relieve congestion very considerably, and it is the fact, as some hon. Members have recognised tonight, that an opportunity is being taken to incorporate a number of fine new techniques in the Victoria Line, among them being automatic train operation and automatic ticket collection.
One hon. Member mentioned automatic train operation and asked about the driver of the train. It is the same thing, really. One has an automatic train which does not need a driver, and one has automatic ticket issue and collection. It means that there is going to be no need for a person to issue or collect tickets and no need for a person to drive a train on the line when it is open, though no doubt there will be some staff about. It is a great credit to the London Transport Board that it has been able to carry automation to that length at the present time.
I have seen a little, but only a little, of automatic ticket collection and automatic train operation, and it is quite an exciting thing. As the Report of the Select Committee says, the Board is really a pioneer in the field. It is in the forefront.
It is also the fact that we will require to take decisions quite soon on possible


Tube developments to follow the Victoria line. There is the Victoria line extension to Brixton. There is the Aldwych branch extension to Waterloo, which one hon. Member said might wait 15 to 20 years for a decision. But I expect to have to take a decision on it at a not very distant date, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. He will realise what I mean when I say that, although I am very confident about the tenure of office of my party, I do not expect to be Minister of Transport in 15 or 20 years' time.
Then there is the Fleet line. The total cost of these lines is estimated to be about £ 100 million, including the rolling stock. Hon. Members will appreciate that one does not get many lines at that price out of a total of £ 50 million which I am asking for tonight, most of which in any case will go on the Victoria line which is under construction now.
Another item of capital investment for which money is required in the period ahead of us is for power generation and distribution. As the House knows, the London Transport Board generates most of the power that is used in the Underground system at its generating stations at Greenwich and Lots Road. The Greenwich station was re-equipped in the 1950's, and a modernisation programme started at Lots Road in 1962 will be completed by about 1970, at a cost of about £ 10½ million, a good bit of which falls within the period during which the £ 50 million will be available. About £ 800,000 must also be spent on a link with the national grid at Greenwich and Lots Road Power Stations to meet circumstances in the event of a power cut. Rehabilitation of the Board's power distribution system was started some ten years ago, and will be completed by about 1970 at a total cost of over £ 14 million.
In 1964, the Board completed a five-year programme at a total cost of about £ 30 million for the introduction of some 1,700 cars of new unpainted light alloy stock on the Metropolitan, Central and Piccadilly Lines. That stock has enabled higher-capacity and more reliable services to be operated at lower costs. The Board's bus replacement programme for the four years 1963– 67 involves the investment of nearly £ 9 million. About 1,300 new buses with more seating capacity will replace some of the older vehicles.
This year the Board is carrying out experiments with' new types of buses suitable for big surges of rush-hour passengers; for example, the standee bus, designed to carry 75 passengers— 25 seated and 50 standing. Hon. Members have said that they have waited for six or seven years to get the introduction of this bus. A year ago we had the Labour Government, and now we have the standee buses for which they have waited for six or seven years.
Work on automatic fares collection has been pushed forward, and it costs money. The use of an electronic control system with increased efficiency and economy of fare collection on the Underground costs money. Experiments on the entrance and exit barriers able to detect, read and record information from passengers' tickets costs money. Promising progress is being made with this work, and I should have thought that it would be the wish of the House that money should be available to enable the work to proceed. The savings the Board expect to make are, first, about 1,100 ticket collectors— which is not unimportant in an area of great labour shortage. Another enormously important saving will be that fraud will be virtually eliminated. The Board is also considering automatic fare collection for use on the buses.
I am not sure that I should take up more time of the House to explain in even greater detail the purpose for which this money is needed. The House will appreciate that I have given sufficient information now, in addition to that which I gave in moving approval of the Order, to show that the Board is alive to its responsibilities. It wants to push ahead, and expand the service which it knows is needed if London is to have an adequate public transport service. The Greater London Council recognises that it has an important part to play in making it possible for the L.T.B. to provide this service.
I, for my part, am quite sure now that it will be necessary either for the Greater London Council to get even greater powers than it has at present to restrain personal and private transport in the near future, or for the Minister of Transport to be so armed with new powers. I have not any doubt at all that in the very near future it will be necessary for new measures to be introduced in London to


restrain personal transport; measures that have not been tried in any other part of the world. In this as in other spheres I believe that London will take the lead, but we will be introducing these measures the better to enable the London Transport Board, with the borrowing powers that I am sure the House will now make available to it, to provide a service worthy of one of the greatest cities in the world.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the Minister indicate when he is likely to make announcements on whether or not there is to be a further element of subsidy for London Transport or if he is to make a fares increase?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that there must be some intimation of any fares increase by London Transport Board. The Board is obliged to give, I believe, four weeks notice of any fares increase. I said that I was considering with my right hon. Friends the review which was produced by the G.L.C. and the L.T.B., made available to us a month ago. We have to consider this review and the situation which has been put to us. If it is necessary to come forward with proposals for further subsidy, we shall bring them forward. If we have to have a further subsidy, I think it almost certain that we would need legislation. There would be need to consult the House of Commons. In the first place it would be for the Board to decide whether with the new review and the traffic measures taken it should ask for a fares increase. If it does that it is obliged to give, I think, four weeks notice of the increase. I shall make a statement as soon as I can of the result of the Government's study of the review made by the G.L.C.
I have no doubt at all that further measures to restrain personal transport in London will be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the London Transport Board (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

NORTH ORBITAL ROAD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: A great road was to be built around London, a ring road north and south of the river, a circular road with London at the centre and 20 miles from the circumference. It is about the north part of that road, and more precisely about the beginning of the northern part covering a projected area from Purfleet to the district of Brentwood, that I shall speak.
The decision to make this road was, in the opinion of all the interested parties official, definite and final. The Minister of Transport himself said so. This is what the Minister said to an important deputation representing 11 county councils:
The North and South Orbital Roads would receive first priority and the route had been generally approved … to make a complete encirclement of the area so as to link with the Dartford— Purfleet Tunnel ".
He said "first priority" and "route approved". The Minister of Transport was Mr. Alfred Barnes and the date was 11th December, 1945. Today, 20 years later, one might ask certain questions. One might ask, what do the words "first priority" mean? What is a Minister's word worth? What notice during all those years has been taken of the wishes of 11 county councils? Why has a greater effort not been made to regulate traffic in one of the most heavily traffic congested areas in the world? Twenty years ago it was said that the building of a North Orbital Road was essential. It is 100 times more urgent today. The Dartford— Purfleet tunnel is now open and is in use. The purpose of this road, beginning at the tunnel, was to carry traffic to and from the North and to and from the East— to and from places in the North, like Edinburgh, Carlisle, Newcastle and Hull, and places in East Anglia like Norwich, Harwich and King's Lynn.
All this traffic on its journey from Purfleet towards Brentwood and beyond still uses the same two narrow, winding roads that were already overloaded before


the tunnel was built. I refer to the two roads from Purfleet, one passing through Orsett and the other passing through Stifford and South Ockendon. These two roads were overcrowded before the tunnel was built, and the traffic has now increased almost unbearably and is increasing every day.
In April of this year a traffic survey of these two roads was made by the engineer and surveyor of the Thurrock Urban District Council. It was a most thorough survey, and a most interesting and alarming report was produced. It shows how many vehicles used these two roads during a period of 15 hours, what sort of vehicles they were, and how many of them were travelling from the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel area to Brentwood and beyond. I have sent these figures to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I will not, therefore, analyse them tonight. I trust, however, that he and his advisers will consider them carefully. All I wish to do tonight is to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the enormous number of these vehicles which use these two roads coming from Purfleet, and which would leave these narrow winding roads if the north orbital road were in existence for them to use.
I am aware that some improvements are being made to these two roads. One of them, the A.128, is being widened with the help of a grant from the Ministry. Minor improvements are being made on the other, the B.186. But these improvements, even if they were far more extensive than they are, would not solve the problem. They would hardly touch it. The problem can only be solved if the North Orbital Road is built. The traffic, bad as it is now, is increasing every day.
Perhaps I shall be told that the time is not appropriate to spend all this money. We are always told that. I think that the time is most appropriate. I do not think the time could be more appropriate than it is at the moment. The Government are crying aloud for more and more exports. Complaints are made every day about delays and hold-ups in the traffic to the docks. Of course, there are delays and hold-ups when the traffic coming from the North and the east of England on its way to the ports in the South has to pass through crowded central London and is then transferred to minor roads

which were never intended to cope with such traffic.
By the way, when we speak about the approaches to the docks— this is not my subject for debate tonight, but I mention it in passing— I think the Minister ought to take a very close look at all the roads to Tilbury Docks. They really are in a bad state, and this accounts for the numerous delays-to traffic coming to and from the docks at Tilbury.
The plea which I make tonight is not one of a Member of Parliament asking for a road improvement in his constituency. My constituency is seriously concerned, but the North Orbital Road is also the concern of the entire country. A great deal of our economy and much of our exports depend upon it. I therefore ask in the interest of the whole nation that this road be started forthwith.
The then Minister of Transport said 20 years ago that this was a first priority. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that a dear friend of ours, Aneurin Bevan, once made the impromptu remark that Socialism was the language of prorities, and he always urged us to get our priorities right. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees. In fact the art of government is getting things in their proper order. If the building of this road was a priority 20 years ago it is, if that is possible, more of a priority now. If, as I am sure he must, my hon. Friend agrees with that, surely he will call upon his Ministry at once to give top priority to building it without delay.

12.21 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): After the display of organised hypocrisy which we saw on the Opposition benches earlier today, it has been a pleasure to listen to the forthright case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), not only as he says on behalf of those whom he represents but also a wider public in the south of the country who are concerned with the North Orbital Road.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend on two accounts. The excursions which I make in these Adjournment debates are a tremendous education in geography. In the course of these in the last twelve


months we had not so far visited Thur-rock. It has now been a pleasure to do so. I thank him also for giving me in advance full notice of the points which he intended to raise. I know that it will be difficult for me to fulfil his expectations. I hope that he will recognise that my reply is realistic, though I can scarcely hope to give him and those whom he represents complete satisfaction. The plan for the North Orbital Road which we are discussing has been with us for a good 20 years. My hon. Friend quoted from our old friend Alfred Barnes. He certainly represented the thinking at that time. Since then there have been many changes in the conception of priorities and in the surveying of needs in those areas. The scheme of the North Orbital Road is the outermost of five ring roads originally brought forward in the Aber-crombie Plan for Greater London. The route runs from the Staines by-pass in the west to the junction of the A. 13 and the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel approach road in the east—the end with which my hon. Friend is concerned.
This road would have two main functions. It would, first, act as a connecting link between trunk routes radiating from London. But in this function we recognise today that it has a serious rival in the "D" ring road, the next ring in towards London, which would do exactly the same job possibly more effectively simply because it is closer to London. Second, particular sections of the North Orbital would serve particular local purposes, mainly as by-passes of densely populated residential areas near which it would pass.
It is very natural, therefore, that my hon. Friend is pressing me tonight for early construction of a particular section for a local purpose of great importance to him and his constituents, that is the relief of two roads at present used by traffic between the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel and the Brentwood area.
My hon. Friend has put to me some traffic figures for vehicles on the A. 128 and the B.186 and we accept those figures. Broadly, they show that something short of 4,000 passenger car units of traffic a day would transfer from them to this particular section of the North Orbital Road if it were built. But we have to consider that the design capacity of the North Orbital, which would, of course, be a dual

carriageway, would be for at least 25,000 passenger car units per day. Therefore, I think that it must be agreed that the traffic figures in themselves at the moment do not justify us in giving early priority to the road in this area.
Of course, we have to consider national priorities in the allocation of road funds and I have to say to my hon. Friend that there are many schemes in the country where the traffic need is more urgent than is shown by these figures. But my hon. Friend also makes his case on the ground that the existing roads are badly overloaded and need relief. The design capacity of two-lane roads, such as these are — and he quoted me some figures in his letter— is 6,000 passenger car units per day. He correctly pointed out that the B.186 is now carrying something over 6,000 units per day and the A. 128 nearly 10,000.
I must make it clear that the design capacity of a road indicates the amount of traffic which can use it so that a free flow is maintained, with each driver going along as he pleases without interruption. We all know this is a most desirable state of affairs that we all want in as many places as possible.
But the fact is that a road can carry considerably more traffic than its design capacity. Many roads besides the A. 128 are doing so. Many are carrying a far greater excess than the A. 128. With our limited funds, we have to work at the moment— and I am imbued also with the language of priorities— to a proper scale of priorities in applying the funds at our disposal for road improvements. We have, I am sorry to say, many more urgent schemes than the construction of the North Orbital Road.
However, things are being done, some of which we referred to, in the part of the country he represents. As he mentioned, we are planning early improvements to the A. 128 in the shape of widenings and realignments. In particular, we have authorised an early start on a diversion at Bulphan, where there are some particularly bad bends. This will cost over £ 211,000.
When these schemes are carried out, we reckon that we shall have a two-lane road of reasonable standard. I know that this is still short of what some people will think necessary, but nevertheless it will be a substantial improvement. But


there is another much more important and expensive scheme coming forward in Thurrock. Giving, as we must, priority to access to the docks, we intend to construct an entirely new highway to the container basin at Tilbury giving a swifter connection from the A· 128 to the docks and by-passing Grays. It will cost over £ 2 million, and we hope to start it next year. We are now carrying out urgent consultations with people on the spot. We consider this to be an important and urgent scheme, for the reason which my hon. Friend mentioned, and I hope, therefore, that it will be recognised among his constituents that we give high priority to the improvement of access to the docks and the new container basin.
To put the whole matter in perspective, the North Orbital Road will be built in time. I hope that that statement will not be greeted with cynicism. I realise that people have been waiting a long time for it, but there is a great deal to be done. It will have to be built in time, but at present we cannot give it high priority. We have to spend money and do other things to existing roads.
For the eight-mile section of the North Orbital Road between Dartford Tunnel and the Brentwood by-pass, the Essex County Council has just finished a survey. We now have its recommendations for the route, and we are examining the implications for other programmed routes in the area. We hope to publish very soon an Order under Section 7 of the Highways Act which will fix the line of route. This will be a definite step forward, and it will be publicised to all the people in that part of the country.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that just this section of the North Orbital Road is likely to cost about £ 5 million. In view of what I have said about its likely priority, therefore, he will realise that it would be exceedingly rash on my

part to forecast tonight when it may be included in the trunk road programme. I can only assure him, having said what I have about the scheme we are carrying forward in his part of the world, that we shall consider all relevant factors very carefully as regards the line of the route and the programming of the North Orbital Road. I hope that he will recognise, in the meantime, that within the scale of national priorities and the funds available to us, we are taking urgent action about the immediate traffic problems in his area.

Mr. Delargy: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his full reply, though I know that he will not expect me to be completely satisfied by it. He spoke earlier about some other ring roads near London. Could he tell me now, or, perhaps, in a letter, what are the other proposed ring roads around London which may affect the area?

Mr. Swingler: There are schemes for a number of ring roads. The North Orbital Road is one of them. Another is the so-called D ring road drawn nearer the centre of London with the object of connecting up all the radial routes around London. We have not yet taken decisions on what will be the best possible routes or what should be the best ring for which we should go. A lot of work is still being done in surveys, by consultants and so on. We have also, as I have said, to give very serious consideration to the recommendations of the Essex County Council and examine them in relation to proposals that the ring should go nearer to the centre of London.

Mr. Delargy: I am much obliged.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.